MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

Queen's Speech (Answer To Address)

The Vice-Chamberlain Of The Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
	I have received with great satisfaction the dutiful and loyal expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

Association Agreements

The Vice-Chamberlain Of The Household reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
	I have received your Addresses praying that the (1) European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Euro-Mediterranean Agreement Establishing an Association Between the European Communities and their Member States and the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria) Order 2003, and that the (2) European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Euro-Mediterranean Agreement Establishing an Association Between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Lebanon) Order 2003, be made in the form of the draft laid before your House on 4th November, in the last Session of Parliament.
	I will comply with your request.

Oral Answers to Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

EU Aid Programmes

Michael Spicer: What measures his Department has proposed for tackling fraud in EU aid programmes.

Gareth Thomas: We take very seriously any accusations of fraud in EU aid programmes. My Department has therefore supported the reform of the EC's aid programmes and policies, in particular the establishment of the EuropeAid office, progress with de-concentration, reduction in the backlog of unspent Commission funds and the reform of the financial management of the Commission's external assistance. Those measures should continue to improve the transparency and accountability standards of the EC aid programme financial management through better scrutiny.

Michael Spicer: Why give the money to the EU at all? Why not give it to the countries direct?

Gareth Thomas: Many countries already have extensive bilateral development programmes. The advantage that the European Commission offers is that it is able to lever in development money that might otherwise not be spent by member states. The hon. Gentleman might want to consider that especially pertinent point while bearing in mind the huge cuts in development spending as a proportion of gross national income over which his party presided.

David Taylor: Among the countries and groups given aid by the EU is the Palestinian Authority. Only two weeks ago strong evidence showed that some of that aid is being fraudulently channelled to militant groups that are behind some of the suicide bombings in Palestine. Will the Minister comment on that and tell us what help his Department has given to root out such corruption and fraud?

Gareth Thomas: I hope that I can reassure the House that the European Commission's investigations have found no evidence to corroborate allegations that EC funds have been misused to finance terrorist activities or used for anything other than their original purpose. We are satisfied that the Commission, with the assistance of the International Monetary Fund, has ensured that all the terms of the conditionality on which it insists when giving aid to the Palestinian Authority have been met. Israeli concerns, which prompted some of the allegations, have receded in the light of further recent reforms in the Palestinian Ministry of Finance, and Israel has resumed the transfer of tax revenues due to the Palestinian Authority. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.

John Bercow: Given that roughly one quarter of British aid spending supports European Union programmes and that fraud in the EU aid budget is currently running at approximately £14 million a year—for the ninth successive year, the European Court of Auditors has refused to give a clean bill of health to the European Union accounts—can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why in the Department's 2003 annual report, neither the section on the European Community, nor the list of 2003 to 2006 public service agreement targets, makes any mention of the fight against fraud in EU aid?

Gareth Thomas: The 2002 European Court of Auditors report actually suggests that while there are some continuing concerns, about which we continue to press for serious improvements, over supervisory systems and controls and standards, a sample audit of the transactions undertaken by the Commission in development spending threw up only a number of relatively marginal errors. Clearly we need to continue to investigate those errors, but the programme of reform that the Commission has implemented in our development spending has produced fewer examples of irregularity and fewer accusations of fraud—far fewer than before 1999 when the current reform programme began. There is thus considerable evidence that the reform programme continues to work. Clearly more reforms may be necessary and we shall continue to support them.

Migrant Remittances

Betty Williams: What assessment he has made of the benefit to developing countries of their nationals working in the United Kingdom and sending remittances home.

Hilary Benn: In October, DFID, together with the World Bank, hosted the first international conference on migrant remittances, which are estimated by the World Bank to be worth $88 billion a year. Research, including that funded by DFID, shows that both migration and remittances help to reduce poverty in developing countries, with remittance transfers making up as much as 40 per cent. of the household budget for receiving families.

Betty Williams: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Remittances are clearly a very effective way of getting cash help through to developing countries. However, in view of the fact that much of that money goes through banks and significant costs are therefore involved, can my right hon. Friend tell the House how he hopes to bring down the cost of remittance transactions?

Hilary Benn: My hon. Friend raises an important point about high costs, but the market is changing—and changing fast—so increased competition and new technology are helping to lower those costs. For example, the cost of sending remittances from the United States to Mexico has halved over the past four years; in Ecuador a bank has issued ATM cards to people who have no bank account, to enable them to access remittance funds from Spain; and similar developments are being considered in other countries. Lloyds bank has a pilot scheme that allows customers to send remittances to India cost-free. There is also the traditional hawala system, of which my hon. Friend will be aware. I hope that all those developments will help to address the question and will reduce the cost of that important support to developing countries.

Quentin Davies: Is not that response a little complacent? Is the Secretary of State aware that only the other day his Department gave evidence to the Select Committee that the individual transaction costs—the amount abstracted by banks and intermediaries—were between 13 and 20 per cent. of the money earned by hard-working, often poor people who are generously trying to support their families in poor countries? That 13 to 20 per cent. on total remittances of $80 billion amounts to more than twice the right hon. Gentleman's total aid programme. Would it not be a good idea to focus a bit more attention on the matter, and will he give the House a considered report about the overall position on the cost of remittances—the extent to which the costs are falling or rising and what can be done about them?

Hilary Benn: I do not accept that my answer was complacent. Indeed, I recognised that the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) and the hon. Gentleman is a real problem and that it needs to be addressed. I gave some examples of practical steps that are being taken, because the market is changing, to bring the costs down. If the hon. Gentleman is looking for a practical contribution, however, I can tell him that one of the things that the Department is doing is establishing a remittance taskforce with 15 donors in international agencies to look at what more we can do in the international community to bring those costs down because, as the hon. Gentleman is only too well aware, the benefit of that money to the recipients is enormous, not least, as he pointed out, because the amount is larger than all the aid that the rich world currently gives the poor world.

Departmental Contracts

Hugh Bayley: What steps his Department is taking towards spending a greater proportion of its budget on goods and services supplied by companies based in developing countries.

Gareth Thomas: DFID contracts are open to international competition from all sources. Suppliers must compete on price and quality and we do not give preferential access. The number of high-value contracts won by developing country firms against international competition rose from two in 2001–02—the first year in which we untied our aid—to 24 last year.
	We have also given delegated authority to DFID's overseas offices to make lower-value purchases in local and international markets, which resulted in about 1,500 low-value contracts worth a total of £20 million last year. We do not record company origin for those services but many of those contracts will have been awarded to developing country firms.

Hugh Bayley: According to the Department's answer to my question in May, last year DFID headquarters awarded only eight contracts to African-based businesses, worth a total of £10.6 million, and DFID missions in Africa awarded additional contracts of about £9.5 million. Given that the Government have almost doubled aid to Africa—to £1 billion a year—does my hon. Friend agree that there is scope for awarding many more contracts to African countries? What will the Department do, consistent with the good management of public money, to enable more African businesses to bid for contracts from DFID?

Gareth Thomas: My hon. Friend alludes to the fact that African-based companies are showing increasing interest in bidding for DFID business. There have been a number of notable recent successes, including the awarding of contracts to companies from Uganda, Tanzania and South Africa. My hon. Friend will be aware that since 1998 about £160 million has been allocated to developing trade-related capacity in developing countries, including countries in Africa. Included in that help is support to assist countries to develop their business sectors by supporting small business development and access to credit, and by increasing understanding of the standards that are necessary to win contracts from DFID and from other European countries. That process is under way. I would expect to see more African companies bidding—and I hope being successful, and winning contracts from DFID.

Martin Smyth: Does the Minister agree, however, that sometimes purchasing officers are not imaginative enough in considering new bidders, and continue on old pathways rather than giving people an opportunity to sell their goods and develop properly?

Gareth Thomas: We need to do two things: first, to develop the capacity of countries themselves to support their own businesses to enable them to grow and develop and to exploit the opportunities that are available; secondly, to ensure that the staff that we have in-country are fully trained in recognising the opportunities and the potential for particular companies. With that in mind, we have given our staff appointed in-country training courses in procurement work so that they can exploit opportunities in terms of the local companies that could possibly do work for us.

Iraq

Cheryl Gillan: What recent representations he has received about aid to Iraq; and if he will make a statement.

Hilary Benn: I continue to receive many representations about aid to Iraq. DFID has now committed £216 million towards humanitarian and reconstruction assistance in Iraq, and at the Madrid donors conference in October, I announced that the Government would commit a total of £544 million for the three years from April 2003.

Cheryl Gillan: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. The Iraqi Red Crescent is doing a fantastic job—especially because it took on some of the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross when it withdrew—particularly in delivering food, although it is stretched so badly that it is suffering from lack of resources. The worst problem that it faces is the lack of medical supplies and the lack of treatment for children. It has been sending children for treatment outside Iraq to Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Greece, and it is now appealing to European and Arab countries for help. We have had some highly publicised cases of children being treated in the UK. Could we do something to help and support this organisation and to help those children who are desperately in need?

Hilary Benn: I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the work that the Iraqi Red Crescent is doing. As for the treatment of children and the health care system in Iraq, the most important contribution that we can make, which we are seeking to do alongside others, is to work with the Ministry of Health to build and develop capacity within Iraq. There are many able and highly trained doctors in a health service that suffered considerably during the course of Saddam's regime. We have been trying to improve the distribution system for drugs and medicines to ensure that there is support and help available to treat children where they should be treated, which is close to their homes in their own country.

Harry Barnes: Saddam Hussein had his people dragooned and controlled within three massive state organisations: one for youth, one for women, and one for workers. Are there means by which the Government could seek to facilitate the newly emergent free bodies that represent these people, such as the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, so that they can get off the ground and be active in various areas? They might be reluctant to be seen to be clients of coalition forces, but there might be means through connections with the TUC and other bodies to facilitate a suitable arrangement.

Hilary Benn: I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in this issue and he is right that the establishment of free institutions is an essential part of building a democratic state. The oppression that the people of Iraq suffered under Saddam's regime meant that that was difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. I have discussed the issue with representatives of the TUC and I am happy to look further at such support as we are able to give to back those within Iraq who are trying to establish a free trade union movement, which is an essential part of a democratic society.

Tom Brake: Both the Prime Minister and President Bush have confirmed that the coalition provisional authority is a coalition body and not an agency of the US Government. Given that fact, and the fact that £30 million worth of DIFD aid to Iraq is either given to the CPA or is channelled through it, what efforts is the right hon. Gentleman making to ensure that the CPA is accountable to the House? When will quarterly statements of the CPA's income and expenditure be given in the House? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we share a responsibility with the US Congress to ensure that the CPA is accountable?

Hilary Benn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. International development questions provide one opportunity for the House to call the CPA to account. The CPA publishes a great deal of information, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, on its website. The development fund for Iraq, which is honouring our pledge that all the oil resources would be used only for the benefit of the people of Iraq, is paying in very large measure for the salaries of the teachers, doctors, nurses and police officers who are now helping to reconstruct the country. The International Advisory and Monitoring Board, which was set up under the UN resolution to demonstrate to the world that the money was being used for the purposes for which it was intended, has just had its first meeting, and will, I hope, provide the assurance that the hon. Gentleman and the House are seeking that the money is being used for its intended purpose.

Colin Challen: First, I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend's Department in the reconstruction of Iraq. As he will know, the Environment Ministry in Iraq is brand new and is a rather novel concept. What aid and support can his Department give that Ministry to ensure that it is not on the margins in the new Iraqi Administration?

Hilary Benn: I acknowledge the important role that the new department to which my hon. Friend referred will play alongside other Ministries in the establishment of the new country. One of the big tasks between now and next June or July, when the coalition provisional authority will cease to exist and power will be provisionally transferred to the new transitional administration, will involve the international community considering how best it can support those new Ministers and Ministries in advancing that work. I undertake to reflect on the point made by my hon. Friend. We cannot do everything in respect of all the departments, and need to focus our energy on those areas where we can make the biggest difference. However, I undertake to respond to the specific point made by my hon. Friend.

Simon Thomas: Would the Secretary of State confirm that an increasing amount of his Department's budget in Iraq is being used to improve the security situation for humanitarian relief workers? While that is obviously a necessary task—the recent £3 million towards security co-ordination for the UN is much needed—does it not raise the question that there may be an impact on the aid delivered on the ground to the people of Iraq? Can the Secretary of State therefore give the House an assurance that the security situation in Iraq, whether it improves or gets worse, will not impact directly on the aid that the Iraqi people themselves receive?

Hilary Benn: My first responsibility as Secretary of State is to secure as far as possible the safety of the people whom Cabinet colleagues and I have asked to work in Iraq. Without security they cannot do the job of aiding the reconstruction of that country. The two are not in competition with each other—they need to complement one another. The British Government, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, have made a considerable financial commitment to support reconstruction. In the end, improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis, which is now beginning to happen, and establishing a clear political process that demonstrates that the Iraqi people have the right to make their own decisions about their own future, are the best contribution that we can make to security. After that, we should support reconstruction, which all hon. Members want.

Ann Clwyd: As my right hon. Friend knows, a week ago I was in Iraq, where I met members of his Department, who are doing a very good job in very difficult circumstances. However, to pick up the question asked by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), the International Committee of the Red Cross was doing valuable work, particularly helping detainees—there are nearly 11,000 detainees in custody, and the ICRC provided a bridge between them and their families—and it is a tragedy that it had to withdraw many of its staff. Will my right hon. Friend give every support to the Iraqi Red Crescent, so that it can carry out a similar function for detainees and their families?

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has just returned from a visit to Iraq, for her kind words about the contribution that DFID staff and those with whom we have contracted are making to reconstruction of the country. She is right that the ICRC has been doing an important job, which makes the targeting of it in the bombing a cynical move by those who do not want the reconstruction of Iraq to succeed.
	I will undertake to look into the specific issue that she raised about the extent to which the Iraqi Red Crescent might be able to support that work, but as she knows, while a number of international agencies have withdrawn their international staff, they still have a considerable number of Iraqi-based staff who are carrying on that very good and important work.

John Bercow: In the light of the recent UN news agency report that the teaching hospital in Basra and the nuclear medicine hospital still suffer acute shortages of equipment for radiotherapy, chemotherapy, endoscopy and anaesthetics, and that in some cases the equipment that exists has not been replaced in three decades, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that if the British Government take urgent steps to tackle those shortages, that help will be invaluable to long-suffering patients and will receive support from people of all political persuasions throughout the international community?

Hilary Benn: I undertake to look into the two specific examples that the hon. Gentleman gave. As he may be aware, there has been a team of four staff seconded from the Department of Health working in the CPA headquarters in Basra, whom I met when I was there at the end of September. They have been working hard on a number of projects to support the re-establishment of the health service in the south of the country, not least the distribution of medicines, which is fundamental to enabling the Iraqi health service to care for its people.

EU International Development Policy

Bob Blizzard: What assessment he has made of the effect of the provisions of the draft treaty on the EU constitution on EU policy on international development.

Hilary Benn: The current draft treaty for EU policy on international development provides for separate chapters for development co-operation and humanitarian aid, establishes poverty reduction as the main objective for development co-operation, makes it clear that member states and the EU will both continue to provide development and humanitarian aid, and gives distinct and equal prominence to development policy within the external policies of the EU.

Bob Blizzard: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that there is nothing in the draft treaty that would in any way constrain or diminish the excellent work carried out by the Government in international development through their own programmes? Does he think that the provisions in the treaty will bring about an improvement in the hitherto less impressive performance of the EU in that domain?

Hilary Benn: I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that he is looking for. The outcome in respect of development has been extremely successful. We are engaged, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary indicated in answer to an earlier question, in a programme of encouraging reform of the European Union, as it spends a considerable part of our money on development. We are concerned that it be spent in the most effective way possible, and I am glad to be able to report to the House that the proportion of EU spending that goes on the poorest countries is gradually increasing. It was 38 per cent. two years ago and 52 per cent. last year, but we want to see that figure go much higher.

Julian Brazier: The earlier, rather complacent answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer) on waste and corruption in the EU budget was in sharp contrast to the words of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short) last year. She said:
	"It's an outrage and a disgrace and we need enormous pressure on the Commission to focus its money on poor countries."
	What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the EU overseas aid budget does not become a tool of the emerging European diplomatic identity?

Hilary Benn: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the steps that we have taken, including making the points that my predecessor but one made in saying that it was an urgent task for the EU to make sure that it used its money more effectively. That is what the reform programme is about, and that is the aim of the devolution of power and responsibility to EU country offices. Decisions taken closer to developing countries will lead to much more effective aid programmes than decisions taken in Brussels. The figures that I have just reported to the House demonstrate that that is having an effect. The proportion of aid going to the poorest countries of the world is gradually increasing, but I want to see much better progress to match the proportion of our aid budget that goes to the poorest countries of the world.

African Conflicts

Jim Sheridan: If he will make a statement on the effect on his Department's work of the current conflicts in Africa.

Hilary Benn: Violent conflict has greatly affected Africa. More than 20 million people have been displaced owing to war and more than 3 million have died in the Great Lakes region since 1997. It also damages development. However, there has been a substantial reduction in the number of conflicts in Africa, with significant progress in tackling the conflicts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Liberia and Angola.

Jim Sheridan: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his work and that of his staff and the voluntary organisations that are working in Africa in extremely difficult and dangerous circumstances. Can he assure the House that, taking safety factors into consideration, the work that he and his Department are carrying out will not be undermined or disrupted and will continue, particularly in the area of the Great Lakes and in Sudan?

Hilary Benn: I had the opportunity to visit both the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Sudan last week, and in both those countries we are looking to increase the Department's support to back success in establishing peace, because those two countries now have a real opportunity to improve the lives of their own people, and we intend to help them in that task.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Andy King: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 17 December.

Tony Blair: This morning I met the President and members of the Iraqi governing council and congratulated them on the measures that they are taking to improve the lives and prosperity of the people in Iraq. I also had meetings with ministerial colleagues and, in addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Andy King: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Warwickshire secondary schools on their excellent results in the key stage 3 tests and their year-on-year improvements—particularly Ashlawn school, up 13 per cent. in English, Bishop Wulstan and Harris schools, up 9 per cent. and 13 per cent. respectively in science, and Kenilworth school, up 10 per cent. in maths?

Tony Blair: I am very happy to congratulate Warwickshire schools. The point that my hon. Friend makes is absolutely right—the tables today show an enormous improvement in results at 14 across the country: 12 per cent. up in English since 1997; 11 per cent. up in maths; 8 per cent. up in science. A £500 million programme of investment, every penny piece of which, of course, was opposed by the Conservatives, has improved results dramatically.

Michael Howard: Can the Prime Minister tell us how much the cost of running central Government has increased since 1997?

Tony Blair: The percentage of administration costs in central Government is actually lower than it was in 1997.

Michael Howard: So the Prime Minister does not know how much it costs to run his Government. It is £20 billion. That is nearly £7 billion more than in 1997. I am surprised that he does not know, because I gave him the figures five weeks ago. Can he tell us now how many more civil servants are employed by central Government compared with 1997?

Tony Blair: There are fewer civil servants than there were, for example, 10 years ago, but it is correct that recently numbers have increased—in the Prison Service and to deal with pensions and immigration issues. But overall, as I said a moment ago, the actual percentage costs of administration are lower now than they were in 1997.

Michael Howard: The answer is that there are 47,000 more civil servants in central Government compared not with 10 years ago, but with 1997. It is as many people as HSBC employs in the whole of the United Kingdom. So the Prime Minister does not know how much his Government cost or how many people they employ. Could he now give us the figure in the pre-Budget report—perhaps the Chancellor will help him—for Government spending on inspectors, regulators, paymasters and policy makers?

Tony Blair: First, I repeat that the cost of administration as a percentage of central Government spending has actually gone down, not up, under this Government. Secondly, perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell us how many of the additional prison officers, for example, he would cut, given the need to increase prison numbers—remembering, of course, that when he was Home Secretary he cut the numbers of police officers on Britain's streets. With regard to the Gershon report, yes there is £9 billion for central Government, but that includes the primary care trusts, the Food Standards Agency, Ofsted and the Prison Service. If he disagrees with that, how many jobs in such bodies would he would cut?

Michael Howard: Let me remind the Prime Minister that this is Prime Minister's questions. I will make the Prime Minister an offer. If he wants me to answer the questions, let him give me a slot every week for Leader of the Opposition's questions. I would be very pleased to do that. He can choose the day—any day of the week—and I will be very pleased to answer his questions. But, just for the moment, he is still Prime Minister: it is my job to ask him questions and it is his duty to answer them.
	If the Prime Minister had got as far as page 140 of the pre-Budget report—he may not have done that, but if he had—he would have come to paragraph 6.47 and he would have been told that the answer to my question is £12 billion: more than the entire budget of the Department for Transport. Is it any wonder that the Cabinet Secretary said last week that bureaucracy and paperwork are now the main concern of civil servants? Does the Prime Minister agree with him?

Tony Blair: Let me again correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his figures. He is giving figures for the entirety of what central Government and local government do. The reason why there is a figure in the pre-Budget report is that for the first time this Government have actually put together the figures that are available. Again, let us be clear. Those are not the only numbers of people employed that have gone up—we have also got 55,000 extra nurses, 25,000 extra teachers, 14,000 extra doctors, 9,000 extra police, and 80,000 extra classroom assistants. Those people are the reason why the results in the health service, education and law and order are going up under this Government.

Michael Howard: I am afraid that the Prime Minister has not read the pre-Budget report. The Cabinet Secretary said that bureaucracy and paperwork are out of control because of the Government's target culture. That is where the money has gone. Can the Prime Minister confirm that according to the pre-Budget report—again, I will give him the reference: it is table B24 on page 237—public sector investment has almost halved under this Government?

Tony Blair: Actually, public service investment is rising under this Government, literally day in, day out. When we came to office, we were spending £30 per family in the health service; it is now £80 per family in the health service. That is the result of the extra investment. There is a reason why the school results are better today at key stage 3—when we came to office, only half the children were passing their tests at 11; now, three quarters do so. There is a reason why every single indicator on heart disease, cancer and national in-patient and out-patient waiting lists is better than in 1997—it is the extra investment, and the truth of the matter is that every single penny piece of it was opposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the Conservative party.

Michael Howard: It is a very great pity that the Prime Minister has not read the pre-Budget report, because the truth is that he has been rumbled. The Government's own figures show that public sector investment—that is, hospitals, schools and roads—has almost halved since he became Prime Minister, while spending on bureaucracy, regulators and red tape has rocketed. Does not that prove that this is a Government who are taxing and spending and failing; that people are faced with ever-higher taxes and ever-failing services; and that after six and half years, this is a Prime Minister who has lost his grip and a Government who have lost their way?

Tony Blair: Let us just look at the national health service. As a result of extra investment, it is in a better position than it ever was when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in power. We know why the Conservatives want to run down the NHS: they want to get rid of it.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about the pre-Budget report, which I have read. It shows that, as opposed to 3 million unemployed under the Conservatives, 1.5 million extra jobs have been created under Labour; as opposed to interest rates of 10 per cent. and 15 per cent., they are now at their lowest for decades; and as opposed to double-digit inflation, we have the lowest inflation for ages. Let us look at—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition is out of order.

Tony Blair: The right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to compare the past with the present. He has apologised for the poll tax, but is he sorry about his opposition to the minimum wage? Is he sorry that he increased unemployment by 1 million? Is he sorry that he cut police numbers when in power? He is not sorry—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Mackay, do not tell me how to do my job. You would not know where to start.

Gordon Marsden: Does the Prime Minister share my concern that in all the focus on and debate about tuition fees, there is a danger of losing sight of the genuine benefits that the Government promise part-time and continuing students in their higher education proposals? Will he ensure that, in discussions with the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, the needs of those students and others in the further education sector are not neglected in the funding, whatever the outcome of the top-up fees debate?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right; we must remember that many students are part-time. Many have to find much of the money for their courses themselves. It is therefore important to have a proper, balanced system of funding for pre-school, at-school and after-school education, not only for those who go to university but for the literally hundreds of thousands of people who want to get better adult skills and the 200,000 people who are on the modern apprenticeship scheme. I assure him that the interests of part-time students will be taken fully into account.

Charles Kennedy: I return to the issue that I raised with the Prime Minister this time last week, when I asked him whether he believed it fair for graduates who earn around £35,000 a year to contribute 50 per cent. of their income to the state, yet unfair—his word, not mine—for those who earn more than £100,000 to pay 50 per cent. of their income to the state under our proposals. How can he justify one and not the other?

Tony Blair: First, on graduates making a fair repayment for the investment in their education, it is not unfair to tell people that they should make some contribution. I should have thought that most people would accept that. As was just pointed out, the interests of other people must be taken into account—education for under-fives and provision for those who need adult skills and those on apprenticeships. We propose a fair system of repayment whereby, for example, graduates who earn £18,000 a year pay £5 a week—that is much better than the current system, even with maintenance loans.
	The right hon. Gentleman's proposal is unfair because it is unrealistic, given the Liberals' huge list of spending commitments, to say that they will get all the money from a 50 per cent. top rate of tax. We went through that with the Liberals when they had a commitment to fund everything out of 1p on the standard rate of income tax. We all remember that, and also that whenever the figures were examined they were incredible.

Charles Kennedy: Oh, Mr. Speaker, there he goes again. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, last week his party produced a document that cited 70 Liberal Democrat spending commitments. We had a look at that document—I have written to the Prime Minister about it—and some of them are spending cut pledges. So much for the economic literacy of the Labour party.
	Returning to the substance and detail of the Prime Minister's proposals, he will not say why it is fair that a graduate earning £35,000 is expected to make a 50 per cent. contribution to the state under his proposals, when he would consider it unfair for someone earning more than £100,000 to be hit with a similar level of debt. And what about those people who are earning only £15,000 a year? The Prime Minister is proposing that they should pay an effective tax rate of 42 per cent. Is that fair?

Tony Blair: I have already said why I think it is fair to have a graduate repayment system. In relation to the 70 spending commitments that the right hon. Gentleman has made, I shall be happy to return to the House on the next occasion with the details of those commitments. I shall give the House a few examples now, however. There is a commitment to spend £2 billion on the railways—[Interruption.] Well, there is. It will either come out of the 50 per cent. or from somewhere else. There is a £400 million commitment for village halls. There is also a pledge to increase, either significantly or dramatically—I cannot remember the exact word—the amount spent on doctors and nurses in the health service. Will that all come out of the 50 per cent? The best thing would be if we both had a look at the right hon. Gentleman's spending proposals when we are not doing other things over the Christmas break, so that we can discuss them again when we come back.

Judy Mallaber: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the launch of the national 24-hour helpline on domestic violence on Monday, the day of the Second Reading of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill in another place? Will he also ensure that adequate resources are put in to back up that hotline by providing refuges all round the country for victims of domestic violence?

Tony Blair: The helpline is going to be extremely important. It will provide 24-hour access to emergency refuge accommodation and an information service that will benefit thousands of women and children. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must ensure that the coverage is as extensive as we want it to be. According to the latest figures, domestic violence now accounts for almost a quarter of all violent crime. We are introducing new measures and putting more money into tackling this issue, but the most important thing—besides the money and the measures—is for Parliament to make it clear by voting unanimously, I hope, on the Bill that domestic violence has absolutely no place in our society and that we are prepared to do whatever it takes to root it out.

Sandra Gidley: The Prime Minister wants 50 per cent. of young people to go to university. He also claims that graduates will attract premium salaries. Will he admit that his aim and his claim are incompatible?

Tony Blair: No, I will not. It is surely important that we increase the number of young people going to university. When I went to university, about 7 per cent. of school leavers went; the figure is now well over 35 per cent. It is important that we carry on increasing young people's access to university, but that has to be funded in a fair way. There will be an end to all up-front fees, so that families and parents will not have to pay anything up front. It is not unfair to ask graduates to make a fair repayment once they have graduated, rather than take all the funding out of general taxation. The more people look at this, the more they will see that that is a fair way to do it.

Jim Knight: The Prime Minister will be aware that CITES—the convention on international trade in endangered species—is to meet in Thailand in October next year. He might not be aware, however, that it appears that more endangered species are smuggled through Thailand than anywhere else in the world. Only this month, more than 100 tigers and 116 orang-utans have been discovered in police raids on two establishments in Bangkok. This followed an investigation by Jim and Alison Cronin of Monkeyworld in my constituency, who are campaigning to rescue Naree, a chimp performing in a Bangkok zoo, who will die from infections if she does not receive urgent specialist treatment in my constituency. Does the Prime Minister—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the Prime Minister understands the hon. Gentleman's concern.

Tony Blair: Right! The United Kingdom is a leading player in the convention on international trade in endangered species, and was one of the first countries to sign up to the convention. I understand that the Thai Government are making a major effort to improve enforcement of the convention in Thailand. We have provided in the region of £1.4 million in financial support for convention initiatives on species protection. There is a wildlife crime intelligence unit with the aim of targeting and disrupting wildlife crime and the major criminals involved. People may laugh at this, but it is a serious issue and involves a lot of organised criminality. It is important that we ensure that the convention is adhered to in all countries.

Bob Russell: Over the Christmas recess, will the Prime Minister contrast the performance of his Government with the achievements of the Attlee Government—real achievements by a real Labour Government? The Attlee Government built 1,000 council houses a week, whereas new Labour has achieved only 3,000 in six years. As a result of a quarter of a century of Tory policies, we are now suffering the worst housing crisis for three or four generations. Hundreds of thousands of children will be living in inadequate accommodation this Christmas. What do a real Labour Government intend to do about that?

Tony Blair: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his early career move to join the Liberal Democrats rather than the Labour party. Frankly, we need no lessons about our pride in the Attlee Government. I believe that the Attlee Government would be immensely proud of 1.5 million extra jobs, of the 500,000 children lifted out of poverty, and of the record investment in health and education, which is a lot more than the Liberals ever did.

Mark Lazarowicz: For more than 3,000 families, Christmas celebrations this year will be turned into tragedy because one of their family members will be killed or seriously injured on Britain's roads. Does my right hon. Friend welcome the work being done by safety camera partnerships, which, with the sensible use of speed cameras, have capped accidents by more than 35 per cent? Will he consider implementing the proposals for tougher speeding and drink-driving penalties that have been under consideration since December 2000?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend makes an important point about safety camera partnerships. The eight pilots have shown a 35 per cent. reduction, which represents a reduction of about 280 people in the number of people killed or seriously injured. As a result of those partnerships, many families whose lives would otherwise have been blighted have not suffered such tragedy. There are 42 police force areas involved in the partnership programme. We will publish a report of the programme's operation of the scheme in the new year, and then we will take the decisions on how to roll it out across the rest of the country.

Elfyn Llwyd: We read this week that all potential candidates for honours will be vetted for anti-Government and anti-Blairite sympathies. Does not that rather narrow the pool unrealistically?

Tony Blair: Like many reports, that one was complete nonsense. I gather that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has written to all the Welsh MPs offering them the chance to make nominations, so there is an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman.

Derek Wyatt: Would my right hon. Friend be prepared to host a meeting at No. 10 for the executives of the Rugby League and the Rugby Football Union, the Super League clubs and Premiere Rugby to establish a rugby foundation that would do for rugby—both union and league—what the Football Foundation has done for football?

Tony Blair: I would certainly be happy for the Government or myself to be involved in such a programme. My hon. Friend has done an immense amount to forward the cause of rugby. In the past few years, rugby union has received about £45 million in lottery awards, which is part of a £1 billion investment in school sport, including almost £700 million to enhance school sports facilities. I agree that there is a case for having a rugby foundation to do the same for rugby as the Football Foundation does for football. I would be very happy to be involved in that in any way.

David Heath: The Prime Minister mentioned his time at university. He was at the same college as me at the same time, as he may remember. The Prime Minister is not very good at answering this question—but how is it fair that neither he nor I will pay back a single penny of the cost of our expensively acquired Oxford education, while he wants graduates to pay a higher rate of marginal tax than millionaires?

Tony Blair: I think we should both draw a veil over our time at university together. I think that would be wise in both our cases, if I remember rightly—but we will leave that for another time.
	The point, surely, is that, as I said a moment ago, when we were at university very few people left school and went on to university. Now, there are five, six or seven times as many. We want people to be able to go to university, if they have the requisite ability.
	After the big expansion of the 1990s, funding per pupil has dropped by some 35 per cent. If we want to expand opportunity for people, it is important for us to get more money into universities. Everyone agrees on that. The question is: what is the fair way in which to do it? I say that rather than taking the money from the general taxpayer—the vast bulk of taxpayers have never been to university—it is surely fair to ask the graduate, on graduation, to make a reasonable and fair payment back into the system.
	I do not think that that is unfair. It is part of a change that is taking place in universities in this country and around the world. What we do not want in this country is to be left behind, either in providing access for students or in the excellence of our universities.

Dari Taylor: Like every other Member, I am delighted that Saddam Hussein has been captured, and I am pleased that we are making a commitment to a fair trial. Will my right hon. Friend help to secure fair treatment for a 22-year-old from my constituency, Urslaan Khan, who has been in prison in Iraq for the past six weeks? No evidence of misdeed has been tabled, and no legal representation has been obtained. The young man's parents are positively distraught, as any parent would be. I ask my right hon. Friend to help secure fair treatment for him.

Tony Blair: I gather from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that he wrote to my hon. Friend last night, and I know that the British office in Baghdad has taken a close interest in the case. I cannot comment on the facts other than to say that we will of course lodge our interest—indeed, we have already done so—and that I know my right hon. Friend will be in touch with my hon. Friend again about the case.

Chris Grayling: Does the Prime Minister still rule out a referendum on the European constitution in all circumstances?

Tony Blair: I have been over that ground many times. As I have said before, if the constitution altered the fundamental nature of the relationship between the member state and the European Union there would be a case for it, but it does not and it will not. We have set down lines so that we preserve the nation state in all its attributes—in relation to tax, social security, foreign policy, defence and treaty change. In respect of all those, and in respect of financial resources, the attributes of the nation state remain. Indeed, an all-party House of Lords Select Committee has said that, if anything, the constitution transfers powers from the Commission to member states. That is why I say that it is not necessary to hold a referendum.

Tony Lloyd: At this time of year, pensioners in my still deprived inner-city constituency know very well why they voted Labour when they receive the winter fuel allowance. Nevertheless, for many of those same pensioners transport in inner-urban areas is not good, and access to the private car does not exist. The Department of Transport has introduced the urban bus challenge in parts of Manchester, giving those deprived groups access to public transport where the Tories' deregulation has failed them so badly. Will my right hon. Friend try to roll out that programme, so that pensioners can have access not just to the money that the Government have given them but to hospitals and shops, and enjoy a normal way of life?

Tony Blair: My hon. Friend is right to mention the additional help given to pensioners, particularly some of the poorest, who are many pounds a week better off as a result of the Government's policies; but I entirely understand his point about the urban bus challenge. We are supporting some four projects in Greater Manchester, and I gather that a further £20 million will be allocated as a result of this year's competition, which is nationwide. That is in addition to fare concessions. However, it is important for us to go on looking at ways to enhance the mobility of pensioners—who, as my hon. Friend said, have enjoyed a better standard of living under this Government, but need to be helped still further.

Andrew Mitchell: Given that the Government have told every further education college in England that it will receive an increase of not less than 2.5 per cent. in its funding next year, rising to 5 per cent., how can it be that Sutton Coldfield college was told last week that it faces a cut of £1.3 million and up to 75 redundancies? In view of this apparent act of bad faith, will the Prime Minister look into the matter personally and agree to receive a delegation from the college? If he can help us on this one point at this time of year, we in Sutton Coldfield will regard him as Father Christmas rather than as Scrooge.

Tony Blair: I obviously do not know about the situation in respect of that particular further education college; I am very happy to look into it, and to write to the hon. Gentleman. However, I hope that he will be so good as to accept that overall—I know that this is no consolation if there are indeed problems at the Sutton Coldfield further education college—this Government are putting a massive amount of money into further education and education generally. If he will forgive me, I have to point out that this Government brought all that additional money before this House, but he and his colleagues voted against it.

Developments in Variant CJD

John Reid: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about a blood transfusion incident involving variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, better known as vCJD. It might assist the House if I begin by setting out the basic facts, before coming on to discuss the implications of the incident that I shall describe.
	In March 1996, a blood donor, who was at the time free of signs of vCJD, donated blood to the National Blood Service. Shortly after this, the donated blood was transfused into a patient who underwent surgery for a serious illness. In continuing my description of these events, I will refer to the individuals as the donor and the recipient. The donor showed no signs of vCJD at the time when blood was given, but developed the disease three years later—in 1999—and died from it. The recipient died in the autumn of this year. Initial post-mortem examination of the recipient showed changes in the brain indicative of CJD. Further examinations and tests of the patient's brain confirmed the diagnosis of variant CJD. The link between the donor and the recipient was first reported to officials in my Department on 9 December 2003, at which time the diagnosis of vCJD in the recipient was still being confirmed.
	I was first alerted to the developments on Friday 12 December, and was briefed by the chief medical officer on Monday and Tuesday of this week. Today, I am bringing this information to the House at the earliest opportunity. I have given, and will give, minimal personal and clinical details of the recipient, because the family concerned wish to have their privacy respected.
	In the light of the facts that I have outlined, it is therefore possible that the disease was transmitted from donor to recipient by blood transfusion, that the blood of the donor was infectious three years before the donor developed vCJD, and that the recipient developed vCJD after a six-and-a-half-year incubation period. This is a possibility, not a proven causal connection, because it is also possible that both individuals separately acquired vCJD by eating bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected meat or meat products. This is a single incident, so the possibility of the infection being transfusion-related cannot be discounted, although it is impossible to be sure what the exact route of infection was. That is the conclusion of the chief medical officer and the experts who report to me.
	It is because this is the first report from anywhere in the world of the possible transmission of variant CJD from person to person via blood that I thought it right to come to the Dispatch Box and inform the House, even if only on a precautionary basis.
	The incident was discovered by good surveillance. In 1997 the Department of Health funded a research study, the transfusion medicine epidemiology review—TMER—study, to examine links between all the variant CJD cases and any form of blood transfusion. It is through that research study that the association between those two patients was identified. I should also point out that this emphasises the importance of post-mortem examination. Without it we would never have known about those matters, and I would like to thank our national health service pathologists for their expertise and constant vigilance.
	I can inform the House that, as some will already know, there is as yet no blood test for variant CJD—or, for that matter, for BSE—let alone one that could detect the disease years before symptoms develop, so there is no way of screening blood donations for the presence of the CJD group of diseases. Fortunately, however, a range of precautionary measures have been put in place by the Government since 1997, even though there was at that time no evidence of the risk of person-to-person transmission of the disease via blood. For the benefit and reassurance of the House, I think it right to set out the action that has been taken to date and the further action that we now propose.
	First, since 1997 all cases of variant CJD reported to the national CJD surveillance unit and diagnosed as having "probable" variant CJD result in a search of the National Blood Service blood donor records. If the patient has given blood, any stocks of that blood are immediately destroyed.
	Secondly, on 17 July 1998, acting on expert advice, the Government announced a £70 million programme to remove most of the white cells from blood destined for transfusion. White cells were considered by experts to be a potential source of infection. This process of so-called leuco-depletion was then a highly precautionary measure to reduce what was then a hypothetical source of infectivity. The process of leuco-depletion—the removal of the white blood cells—was implemented by the National Blood Service over time, and completed by October 1999.
	Thirdly, in November 1998, again acting on expert committee advice, the Government announced a £30 million programme to phase out the use of United Kingdom-sourced plasma in the manufacture of blood products. At the time, in the absence of any defined risks, that was another highly precautionary measure. From the end of 1999, therefore, all blood products have been made using plasma sourced from the United States of America. To ensure continuity of supply, the Department of Health purchased on 17 December 2002 the largest remaining independent US plasma collector, Life Resources Incorporated, as part of our attempt to ensure that plasma and plasma-related products were derived from sources outside the United Kingdom.
	Fourthly, the National Blood Service has informed us that 15 people received donations of blood from donors who subsequently developed variant CJD. Of the 15 individuals, we have been informed that five received blood after leuco-depletion had been implemented, and the remainder before. The earliest of those 15 transfusions was in 1993 and the latest in 2001. Working with the National Blood Service, the Health Protection Agency is in the process of contacting those individuals. All will be told about the circumstances of their case and have the opportunity to discuss the risks with an expert counsellor.
	Many more patients, of course, including haemophiliacs, will have received plasma products before plasma was sourced from the USA. They will have received products derived from large pools of plasma donated from many thousands of people and thus heavily diluted. The UK-wide CJD incidents panel considers the risks for that group to be even lower than for those who received whole blood. It is very difficult to trace all individual recipients of such products made from these plasma pools. However, the panel will be advising, on a case-by-case basis, which recipients will need to be contacted as the necessary information becomes available. That group of patients will also have the opportunity for a discussion with an expert on an individual basis. Any person with any concerns may ring NHS Direct on 0845 4647.
	Fifthly, before these events, expert groups were already deliberating on whether further measures were required in relation to vCJD and blood. In October this year our expert Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissues for Transplantation advised, on the basis of a risk assessment, that further action, such as stopping people who have received a blood transfusion giving blood, was not necessary. However, in the light of today's statement, we have asked that committee to look comprehensively at whether further precautionary measures could be taken that would not adversely impact on the safety or availability of blood.
	Sixthly, it is apparent that much more blood and blood products are used clinically than need to be used. There have been many past attempts to reduce the use of blood to situations where it is absolutely needed medically, but these have been only partially successful. I will therefore be asking the National Blood Service to have urgent discussions with the medical royal colleges and NHS hospitals to address that area of clinical practice. More appropriate blood usage will reduce all the risks associated with blood and will make more effective use of our precious blood supplies.
	A finding of this kind, albeit one whose full medical significance is still far from clear, will inevitably give rise to concern. It is therefore important to take account of the wider context in two respects. First, since the events in 1996, approximately 24 million units of blood or blood components have been given to patients in the United Kingdom. Blood transfusion can be a life-saving treatment, but no medical treatment is free from all risks. Indeed, it is an unfortunate fact that already approximately 12 people die each year from complications of blood transfusion. Many people receiving blood transfusion are already very ill, some in life and death situations. A wide range of measures are routinely used to reduce the risks of transfusion by screening for HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B and C and other infections. For specific high-risk patients, even more detailed screening takes place.
	Those wider measures should be seen in the context of the precautionary action already taken on vCJD and the recognition that so far we have only one single report of a possible link between a single donor and a single recipient. We are generally regarded internationally as having a very safe blood service, especially because of our precautionary approach to screening for infection, careful donor selection and the tradition of volunteering in this country, which means that our donors generally have a lower incidence of many viral diseases compared with those in other countries who are paid for their donations.
	Finally, as to the wider situation for vCJD, we have thankfully not so far seen the thousands of cases of vCJD that some projections suggested. As of 1 December 2003, there had been a cumulative total of 143 cases of vCJD in the United Kingdom. Over the past three years, the annual number of new cases has fallen each year. However, there should be no complacency, as it remains premature to conclude that the epidemic has peaked, and in any case, any single case of vCJD is tragic for the patients and families concerned.
	I hope that my statement has given the House a clear and accurate account of the finding in the full context in which it needs to be seen. I have asked the chief medical officer to oversee the further work and investigation required, and to keep me closely informed. I will, of course, also keep the House informed of any major developments in this area.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his having given me the opportunity to see the statement in advance, and I am sure the whole House is grateful to him for his openness and for the speed with which he has given us details of what is, as he said, a tragic event. We understand and respect entirely the privacy of the family concerned, but I am sure that they will receive from us our sincere condolences. I am also sure that the Secretary of State will be able to confirm that they, like other families affected by variant CJD, will be beneficiaries of the compensation scheme.
	It is important to identify what we do not know. The Secretary of State was right to illustrate the limits of our knowledge about this tragic event. We do not know what, if any, means of transmission exists between blood and infection with variant CJD—we do not know whether blood is the source of the infection. He will be aware that, because there have so far been so few identified cases of variant CJD in a large population who were exposed to BSE-contaminated beef, the chances of the recipient contracting variant CJD other than by exposure to blood transfusion must be regarded as less likely than by some means connected with the blood transfusion, although I freely accept that we cannot quantify either risk, given the nature of the two populations involved. Equally, having been unable to establish the risks, we cannot go on to screen blood donations—the technology to enable us to do so does not exist—or to test for variant CJD.
	Nevertheless, I hope that the Secretary of State can answer some questions. Although precautionary measures are being taken in relation to blood transfusions both of whole blood donations and of blood products and plasma, will he confirm that the transfusion in the case in question was a transfusion of whole blood and, therefore, of red cells? The transfusion occurred in 1996, and therefore before the implementation of precautionary measures in relation to leuco-depletion. If in this case there is a connection to blood donation, it may well be that the risk has been substantially reduced by the introduction of the precautionary measure adopted in 1998. What research is continuing into the impact and the benefits of leuco-depletion in relation to blood transfusions of whole blood donations?
	I have a few detailed questions to ask. The Secretary of State said that the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissues for Transplantation is to advise him on whether blood donations should be accepted from people who have themselves received blood transfusions. In 1998, when the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) told the House of other precautionary measures, he had sought and received advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. Time will not have allowed both committees to have given advice to the current Health Secretary, but will he confirm that he will also be taking advice from SEAC? Clearly, advice must come from those who have expert knowledge of the characteristics of BSE and variant CJD; the issue should not be seen only from the viewpoint of the National Blood Service.
	The Secretary of State said that thus far there had been 15 cases of blood donors subsequently contracting variant CJD, and he will recall that at least one of those cases occurred in Scotland. Questions regarding the ability to follow up patients who were potentially recipients of blood donations arose at that time.
	Can he confirm that the different Administrations are now able to deal with people who have dispersed across the UK or the world? Are patients who might have received such blood donations being contacted and followed up?
	What conclusions has the Secretary of State reached in response to the advice given by the CJD incidents panel on the risk of exposure to variant CJD from surgical instruments? What action will he take in that respect? It is a matter that has been under consideration for a long time.
	In the wider context of blood transfusions generally, I turn now to children born since 1 January 1996. They could not have been exposed to BSE-contaminated beef, and to reduce the risk to that vulnerable population group it is intended to secure for them in early 2004 what is described as single-unit—that is, not pooled—virally inactivated donations from non-UK—in this case American—untransfused males. What consideration will the Secretary of State give to the availability of that form of blood product—plasma—for a wider group of vulnerable patients? Those patients include people who require regular transfusions, such as haemophiliacs, or those who need large-scale transfusions or blood products on a regular basis. What difference has the purchase of the plasmaphoresis centres in the US from Life Resources Incorporated made to the availability here of blood products for that purpose?
	It is important for the House to recognise that 2 million people donate blood each year in the UK. They provide a vital, life-saving resource. The number of lives that are saved and the number of incidences of disease prevented by those donations far outweigh any risks associated with them. At the same time, the reporting structure on the serious hazards of transfusion needs greater compliance from NHS hospitals. More hospitals must act on the recommendations, make them part of their clinical governance and report back in full. In that way, the openness of the reporting structure will mean that we learn from mistakes and thus reduce risks overall. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the responses in the NHS to the transfusion hazard recommendations are acted on as fully as possible?
	The Secretary of State made a welcome statement in August about hepatitis C compensation, and we are awaiting the details of the scheme. Now is not the time for a detailed debate on that, but will he confirm that those who contracted hepatitis C through blood donations, and their families, will get some news soon about the compensation scheme?
	The Secretary of State said that he would be considering advice in relation to people who have received transfusions. Will that extend to people who have had transplants? There has been speculation about the measures that he might take. He referred to the availability of blood donations, which it is important to bear in mind. What has been the reduction in the number of blood donations in recent years? If there were to be a substantial and adverse impact on blood donations, the health consequences could be very serious.
	Finally, I strongly endorse what the Secretary of State said about seeking alternatives to blood donations in treatment. The UK does not adopt such measures as much as some other countries. He may be aware of the possibilities offered by erythropoietin, known in short as EPO, as an alternative to large-scale transfusions for cancer patients suffering from anaemia. Will he update the House on the extent to which clinical trials and consideration of the costs and benefits offered by EPO are making progress? The use of EPO may help to reduce the need for blood donations to a minimum, and allow us to use the blood that is donated as well as we can.

John Reid: I begin by thanking the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) for his remarks, and especially for the condolences that he expressed to the families of anyone afflicted by variant CJD. We all share those sentiments. He also asked a number of perfectly legitimate questions, which I shall try to answer.
	The hon. Gentleman ended his remarks by talking about EPO. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence is considering the matter very seriously, and I hope to have the result of that work not too far into next year.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about compensation for CJD victims and their families. Those people are entitled to compensation from the CJD compensation fund, which is run by independent trustees. I cannot make a statement that might pre-empt the fund's decision on such matters, but I am sure that it will consider all cases—including the latest one—sympathetically.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the route of infection. He is right to be cautious and to weigh the matter in the balance. Although we cannot rule out the possibility that a person might be infected by receiving blood from a donor who subsequently dies from CJD, we cannot prove that it happens. However, I thought it appropriate to come to the House today, as for the first time we have evidence that it is possible. As he said, the incidence has been very low in the past; as far as we know, this case is the first of its kind. Intuitively, we might feel that the case could suggest that the pattern might be much more widespread if blood were truly the source of CJD transmission. However, intuition is not always reliable in these circumstances. We need empirical evidence, and that is why I have asked the chief medical officer and various expert advisers to investigate the matter. I confirm that they will include at least two of the people to whom the hon. Gentleman referred.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the transfusion of whole blood rather than plasma. To the best of my knowledge, the transfusion involved in this case was of blood, not plasma. The blood was donated in 1996, before the precautionary measures, including leuco-depletion, were introduced towards the end of the 1990s. The donor died about three years later from variant CJD, and the recipient has now died more than six years later. I shall not go into the range of causes behind the recipient's death, but the discovery that the recipient was suffering from variant CJD was made at the post-mortem examination.
	It is important that we adopt a cross-border approach to this matter, and that we co-ordinate our actions. My Ministers have spoken this morning to the other Administrations in the UK to inform them that I was to make a statement. However, medical experts around the country were in touch with one another last Friday, by teleconferencing and other means. It was at that stage that the matter was brought to my attention. I can therefore confirm that we work as closely and in as co-ordinated a way as possible with the devolved Administrations.
	Two other questions arise in connection with the 15 identified recipients to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The first has to do with tracing and tracking them. Quite apart from the difficulties caused by cross-border movements, people can also move around inside England, for instance. That is not always easy to deal with. Secondly, before we contact them, we must weigh the risk factor involved. Some of the cases have been known for a considerable time, but experts have considered that the balance of risk meant that more distress would have been caused if the people involved had been contacted and informed. I hope that further distress will not have been caused by today's statement. Obviously, the fact that the single new piece of evidence has arisen means that an immediate contact process has been put in place, but there will be difficulties with tracing and movement, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
	On transplants, all the work that we are doing extends to tissues as well as blood. The hon. Gentleman asked about leuco-depletion and I can tell him that a whole range of research is being conducted, in academia as well as by the research councils. The Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, which is an expert committee, will consider its activity on a range of issues at its forthcoming meeting early next year.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned surgical instruments. He will be aware, as will many hon. Members, that we have been examining that matter for some time. Such consideration is not easy because the various possible substitutes and methods to diminish potential opportunities for cross-infection, such as the use of disposable surgical implements, have potential risks. Many surgeons in England have indicated that they would be unhappy with using such disposable implements when operating. We are investing some £200 million in improving decontamination standards precisely because we are committed to minimising the risk of the transmission of vCJD via surgical procedures, as the hon. Gentleman would expect. The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency is working with manufacturers to improve the quality and reliability of single-use instruments.
	I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that we are taking advice from a range of committees, including SEAC, which he mentioned, the Advisory Committee on Dangerous Pathogens, the Committee on Safety of Medicine and the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Blood and Tissues for Transplantation. I suspect that other independent agencies will immediately try—without instruction or the need for persuasion—to examine their own procedures and determine whether there are implications for them. We are also examining with the National Blood Service the practicality and cost of making fresh frozen plasma available to higher-risk groups. As I said earlier, the purchase of an American blood plasma company has ensured an adequate supply of plasma products from a BSE-free country.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the state and volume of stocks in the health service and levels of donations to it. We keep them at an optimum level—I can confirm that they are at an optimum level—and if there were a reduction beneath that level, we would obviously take emergency action.

Paul Burstow: May I, too, thank the Secretary of State for his statement, his courtesy in allowing us to see it in advance and the open way in which he has dealt with the matter by coming to the House only a short time after learning of the situation? I also associate myself with the condolences that have been expressed throughout the Chamber to the families involved.
	Will the Secretary of State say a little more about the time line behind the diagnosis? Given that the donation of blood occurred in 1996 and the death of the donor occurred in 1999, what steps were taken to trace those who had received blood from the donor, and how many of the 15 people to whom the Secretary of State referred received blood from that donor?
	The company Life Resources Incorporated was purchased in 2002. Can the Secretary of State tell us what assessment was made before and since the purchase of the risk to US supplies from the sources from which it acquires its blood? Concerns have been raised about indications that drug addicts and prisoners in the US could be used as potential sources of blood, so I should be grateful if he would indicate what assessment of that has been made.
	Can the Secretary of State clear up a little confusion that I have as a result of reading both his statement and material from the National Blood Service? I understand that the first consignments of fresh frozen plasma from the United States are due to arrive in the UK in January 2004 and that components of it will be issued from the spring. When will all children born on or after 1 January 1996 have access to US-sourced plasma? Do they have such access now and, if they do not, when will they have it?
	The Secretary of State's statement referred to the fact that no blood test is currently available for vCJD. What advice has he received from his experts about the likely time scale in which we could expect such a test to become available? I understand that the National Blood Service has expressed concern that there could be as much as a 50 per cent. drop in supply if a test became available, so what contingency arrangements is he putting in place to avoid such a collapse in supply?
	Haemophiliacs have been mentioned. When will they have access to recombinant factor 8? Reference has been made to the need to manage better and use more wisely the blood that people donate? What steps are the Government taking to allow people to store their own blood as one way of managing the use of, and demand for, blood?
	With that, I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and look forward to his answers.

John Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about my bringing the matter to the House. There is always a fine balance between, on one hand, bringing a matter to the House and thus raising the status of the announcement that one is making and, on the other hand, retaining information that should be legitimately available to the House and the public. Although there was one single incident on this occasion, I decided that provided that the reports were accurately reflected and not over-dramatised, it would be a better path to bring the matter to the House as soon as possible.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether only one person had received blood from the donor. The best information that I have suggests that one other person received blood, although hon. Members will understand that we do not have every single fact and figure. He asked about the length of time that has passed since we knew about the 15 recipients. We have known about that for a considerable time—I do not necessarily mean my Department when I say, "we". The names have been known for a considerable time, but in the absence of evidence during that time, such as that which we have today, the decision was taken that on balance, it would be more beneficial to the patients who received the blood to carry out a full assessment of the risk. That process has been ongoing for some two years, during which expert panels have investigated the matter—although the hon. Gentleman will realise that such an assessment was pretty difficult. It was decided that it was better to do that rather than causing distress in the face of any evidence, but that situation has changed because of today's statement.
	Consequently, action on risk assessment and risk communication, which is a complex matter, was already proceeding. Several expert committees were involved, but the risk assessment for individual patients who might have received plasma is not yet completed. I was told during briefings in the past two days that the UK-wide CJD incidents panel met in October this year and received a report showing that the complex risk calculations for blood and plasma products were nearing completion. The panel recommended at the meeting that following the completion of the process, a package of action should be designed with the Health Protection Agency to communicate the level of risk faced by individual patients to the patients themselves. Today's action initiates the first steps in that process, because we cannot reasonably wait any longer.
	I do not want to deceive the hon. Gentleman by implying that we have only just found out the names of those 15 people; the names were known but the risk assessment was such that it was decided, until we received this evidence, to make a far more complex assessment rather than cause them undue distress in the absence of that work. As I said, had those people been contacted earlier they would have been given a degree of reassurance that we should now have had to qualify—perhaps causing them more distress.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the sources of US blood supplies. We are satisfied about the blood supplies that we receive. My understanding is that a fair percentage of the blood comes not from the sources that he mentioned but from native Americans, for instance, and others to whom some of the points that he made would not apply. The American company, Life Resources Incorporated, which we have acquired, requires vigorous tests for assessing the blood products that it supplies us. Other appropriate quality assurance procedures are in place, as hon. Members would expect. As soon as the products become available in the new year, children will receive them.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about factor 8 for haemophiliacs. That will be available shortly, and the programme is being rolled out at present.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about tests. Tragically, the truth is that there is no diagnostic—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Secretary of State, but perhaps he could write to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow). I am obliged to call Back Benchers, as a statement must include them. Front-Bench speakers have taken 40 minutes, which is unfair to Back Benchers.

David Hinchliffe: Although I realise that we have had a long session of questions from the Front Benches, I am sure that everyone has noted the value of the questions. May I, too, express my appreciation to the Secretary of State for coming to the House with a thorough and detailed statement? I appreciate the precautions that are being taken in this difficult situation.
	May I raise two wider points that were not touched on in the previous questions? First, my right hon. Friend will recall that not long ago there was publicity about the case of a vCJD sufferer who, according to the media, showed some response to a particular form of treatment. What is the Government's position on treatability? As my right hon. Friend knows, the issue is of concern to many people.
	Secondly, may I press my right hon. Friend about the care packages available for people facing the problems of vCJD and their family carers? He will be aware of the concerns expressed by people close to some of the sufferers and their families that it has taken a considerable time to put the packages together, which has caused difficulties for patients and their families. Will he address that point? Is he satisfied that when a person is diagnosed every effort is made to ensure that a proper care package is put together as soon as possible?

John Reid: On the last question, we are doing that, as far as I am aware; but as I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in these matters, especially given his position as Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, I shall reassure myself on that point. The problem is not so much treatment after diagnosis, but the diagnosis itself, because there is no diagnostic test for vCJD—there is no blood test—so, with reference to today's discussion, there is no test to screen potential blood donors.
	My hon. Friend asked about possible treatments. He will know that the Department of Health agreed in principle to fund the trial of Quinacrine for the treatment of CJD. The trial will be undertaken through the Medical Research Council and is expected to commence in early 2004. A small number of patients with clinical symptoms were treated prior to the establishment of the clinical trial. We continue to seek out appropriate treatment wherever we can, but at present I cannot say that diagnosis or treatment are available on anything that we could describe as an effective scale.

John Greenway: The Secretary of State referred to the fact that some successful operations have been carried out. Recently, an 18-year-old girl in my constituency successfully underwent such an operation—by the intraventricular installation of Pentosan polysulphate. I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about the trials; the operation was carried out the day after that decision was made. However, despite the fact that the operation was sanctioned by the local hospital and primary care trusts, surgeons in the hospital refused to permit use of the necessary sterotactic frame equipment due to their concerns about contamination, so the equipment had to be purchased from Sweden at the eleventh hour at a cost of about £38,000. Although the operation was carried out by the national health service, the NHS executive has so far declined to sanction payment for the equipment from NHS funds.
	I am sorry to spring that matter on the Secretary of State on this occasion, but I hope that he will understand my concern and the concern of the patient's parents—I was about to write to him about the case. I hope that I have been positive in showing that treatment is available and we celebrate the fact that the girl is alive and improving, but I hope that he will recognise the need to look into the matter in respect of the cost of the equipment.

John Reid: Of course, I cannot respond on an individual case. Any family who found themselves in such a position would obviously seek out every possible avenue for relieving pain, removing symptoms or curing the disease itself—all of us would do that. That is perfectly understandable, but we have not yet found a medically verifiable way of diagnosing or treating this terrible disease.
	The hon. Gentleman referred to Pentosan. It is not licensed in the United Kingdom—I do not think that he mentioned that—although it is licensed in the United States as a treatment for cystitis. There can be adverse side effects, such as bleeding, hypersensitivity and a number of others. The most recent advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines is that there is some very limited evidence from animal studies that Pentosan may be an effective prophylactic agent, although the committee also advises that there is no rational basis for describing the drug as a prophylactic. It is not licensed for use in the UK and could thus be prescribed only under a doctor's personal responsibility as an unlicensed treatment.
	I do not know about the case described by the hon. Gentleman, but I do not doubt what he says. However, matters are sometimes slightly more complex as we have to consider medical ethics and the advice that we are given, as well as the anguish of individual patients.

Ian Gibson: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on the alacrity with which he has brought the situation to the attention of the House. More than anything, that will reassure the public that the matter is being looked at seriously. In the interests of that reassurance, has my right hon. Friend left open consideration of the possibility that there may have been separate infection of the two individuals? Will he ask the Food Standards Agency to make a statement about the current position in respect of meat and meat products in this country and their sources? That would further reassure the public that we have that aspect under control.

John Reid: The answer is yes on both points. Although the donor and the recipient were obviously connected through the transfusion of blood, it is possible that each of them was independently infected through meat products rather than through blood. Yes, I shall certainly speak to the FSA to find out what it can do to bolster confidence in our approach in these difficult circumstances and to reduce any over-dramatisation of the evidence.

Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Gentleman will know that one of the problems of determining how large the incidence of CJD will be is uncertainty as to the incubation period. If there is a causal relationship between the donor and the recipient in this case—we know that, if there was such a relationship, there was a six-year incubation period—does not that give us a clearish indication of the incubation period and would not that give some modest encouragement to the belief that we shall not see a very large number of new vCJD cases?

John Reid: There are a number of difficult words in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's question. The first and most difficult is the first word in his question, which was "if". It is true that we are not clear on the incubation period; it is also true that we do not have the method of diagnosis. Today will add further uncertainty to a number of those areas.
	As I said earlier, it is also true that the number of incidents that are verifiable by post mortem and through obvious symptoms of vCJD is much lower than some projections at the beginning insisted. We must calmly reflect on today's evidence. I am not sure, within a few days of this being produced, whether we can draw any conclusions on the incubation period. I hear what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says on that matter.

Dai Havard: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, I have written to him recently about issues related to blood safety, and particularly its usage for cancer patients with anaemia. I have been trying for the past two years to organise initiatives in the House in that regard. There are known questions that need answers. I think that most of the questions that have been asked today relate to issues that have been previously identified. I welcome the idea that there will be changes in clinical practice, particularly in the use of alternatives for cancer patients who have anaemia. I received a letter from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence telling me that it does not know when such an initiative will be started.
	A couple of weeks ago, the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group was saying that it was not prepared to advise that alternatives could be used for cancer patients with solid tumours. There are simple and immediate step changes that could be recognised and carried out. I would welcome the opportunity to support my right hon. Friend in dealing with some of the old boys and old girls clubs that stop good practices in the health service, that could be initiated on the back of this activity.

John Reid: I understand both the substance of the problem to which my hon. Friend has referred and the level of commitment that he has brought to campaigning on the issue of EPO. I can only repeat what I said earlier. We referred the matter to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. We instituted such a body so that we could take these decisions on priorities, and decisions on the availability of treatments as well as on the availability of drugs and equipment, independently of political decisions. I understood that NICE was looking at the matter and that there would be an outcome next year. I do not think that I can advance on that. If my hon. Friend has other information, I shall be prepared to speak to him about it. Both of us will be reassured that NICE will look at the matter expeditiously.

Hywel Williams: Will the Secretary of State ensure that there is the highest level of co-operation and information exchange on this difficult issue between NHS Direct in England and NHS Direct in Wales? Many Welsh people live some of the time in England but would normally access services in Wales. However, I have had direct evidence recently that the information held by NHS Direct in England about services in Wales is up to three years old in the written form and is considerably out of date in some respects.

John Reid: We do try to update that information. We shall attempt to ensure that the information available on this subject is as up to date as possible throughout the United Kingdom.

Andrew Miller: Although this is obviously a tragedy for the families affected, and we are all sympathetic about that, it is important that the matter be kept in perspective. Will my right hon. Friend talk to the chief medical officer about ways of ensuring that the advice and support lines that he sets up are backed by expert help in putting these matters in perspective? We are thousands of times more likely to be killed on the roads than to contract vCJD. The matter needs to be put into perspective, especially for the media.

John Reid: I agree with my hon. Friend. The information has been put into the public domain through the House so that everybody can be fully informed and reassured that we are approaching this matter in as open and transparent a fashion as possible. However, it is true that about 24 million units of blood have been made available over the course of recent years and that this is the first case that we have ever found where there is a link between a donor and a recipient as regards vCJD. However, there are other possible ways in which both of them could have been infected. It is not proof of a causal relationship, or that this has been transmitted through blood. I hope that we shall not be in the least complacent. On the other hand, we should not over-dramatise the situation, which could lead to widespread over-concern and panic.

Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State has put us all in his debt by coming so soon to the House with this information. I welcome it, but with a deal of caution, particularly in terms of incubation. May I press the right hon. Gentleman a little on his answers to the hon. Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), who talked about a new treatment? Over a year ago, I was in touch with the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor about a new treatment, and finally the family had to go to the courts. They got that treatment. The doctor who looked after the patient said that if he were ever diagnosed with vCJD he would want that treatment to be started immediately. If the treatment is available, it is important that it be used immediately following diagnosis. Bearing in mind that many others may yet develop vCJD, I think that researchers should be working more positively. The young man concerned would have died before last Christmas, but he is now at home in the care of his family, showing decided improvement. As he was so far down the road, it is doubtful whether he will ever be completely cured.

John Reid: I am obviously aware of the case that the hon. Gentleman raises. It was in Northern Ireland, as it happened, and there was a subsequent court case. We took cognisance of what was said in that case, and the experience of it, and we arranged for pilot schemes to be carried out. Following the initial success, or apparent success, in treating the patient, we decided last year that we would carry out tests.
	I do not think for a moment that we should be irresolute or hesitate in attempting to improve diagnosis or treatment. However, a degree of responsibility at the Government Dispatch Box is necessary. I say to the House that, thus far, none of our efforts has indicated a medically verifiable way of diagnosis or treatment for this disease. For me to indicate otherwise would be to raise hopes to an extent that would not be warranted.

Jon Owen Jones: All the early victims of vCJD shared a particular genetic piece of information for the manufacture of certain proteins. Is it still the case that all the victims are in this genetic subgroup? Is that so for this new case? If it is, have we looked at the 15 possible recipients of blood to ascertain whether they are in the same vulnerable group, or whether some of them are?

John Reid: The simple answer is that I do not know. By this afternoon, I will have asked those questions.

Paddy Tipping: In his detailed and thoughtful statement, my right hon. Friend rightly laid out the tragic consequences not only for the sufferer but for his or her wider family. Against that background, is he in a position to tell the House a little more about the compensation scheme for hepatitis C patients, which was agreed in principle in the summer? When will he be able to make an announcement about the way forward?

John Reid: The answer is shortly. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), has been working hard on this, and it should not be too long before we can make a public announcement.

Tom Harris: At this time of year, the National Blood Service encourages donors to make time in our busy schedules to ensure that we give blood. The timing of the announcement is probably unhelpful, because a number of people will understandably be reluctant to give blood, as happened following incidents in the 1980s and 1990s. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend offer blood donors to encourage them to continue giving blood and reassure them that that is a valuable thing to do?
	Furthermore, can my right hon. Friend advise—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has only one question.

John Reid: At this late stage in the questions, I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to make the position clear. People who give blood in this country perform a great and valuable service. I thank them for everything that they have done in the past, and we shall continue to seek their support in the future. Nothing that we have said today should in any way diminish the fact that over the years the lives of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands or even millions, of people have been improved, protected and saved by the public service performed by blood donors. As we approach Christmas and the new year and all the difficulties of the season, I hope that everyone remembers that, and will continue to give blood as a service to their fellow citizens.

Point of Order

Richard Younger-Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Monday afternoon, I contacted your office at 12.35 to inquire whether there would be a statement on Iraq. Your office advised me that there would be no statement on Iraq, but told me that there would be one on the European Council and that there would be no urgent questions. On the basis of that information, I went about other parliamentary business instead of coming to the Chamber. When I looked at Hansard, it was clear that the Prime Minister did make a statement on Iraq.
	May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether your office was advised that the Prime Minister was going to broaden the scope of his statement? If so, was there any way in which you could have let ordinary Back Benchers know that there would effectively be a statement on Iraq? If you were not so advised, Mr. Speaker, was the Prime Minister in order when he broadened his statement?

Mr. Speaker: The Prime Minister was in order. Had he been out of order, I would have let him know. As the hon. Gentleman said, he was not in the Chamber. We are all on a learning curve in the House of Commons, so perhaps the trick is that when the monitor shows that the Prime Minister is going to make a statement, the hon. Gentleman should come to the Chamber. There may be something of interest to him, and he may try to catch my eye. Orders of the Day

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill

[Relevant document: The First Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2003–04, on the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill, HC 109.]
	Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson).

David Blunkett: Before I move Second Reading, Mr. Speaker, I should be grateful if you forgave me because, in the light of the court judgment that Ian Huntley is guilty of the murder of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman, I felt that the House would want to send the families our love and concern. Our hearts go out to them this afternoon. I shall lay a statement before the House and, in conjunction with the Opposition spokesmen, take steps to initiate an investigation into some of the events that took place from 1995 onwards.
	I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I understand that the shadow Home Secretary is ill, and send him our best wishes for Christmas. [Interruption.] There seems to be some demurral among Liberal Democrat Members, but I send good wishes on their behalf—let us be joyous for Christmas. The Bill is part of a jigsaw that includes not only the legislation already on the statute book but the administrative measures that we have been using to improve the operation of our border controls and immigration system. As the House knows, there have been substantial improvements in recent years, but we all accept that many changes are still required, both in legislation and to improve administration. To repeat what I have said when we have debated these issues over the past two and a half years, Ministers are painfully aware of the difficulties of achieving substantial improvement, given the significant rise in the number of people applying for asylum, while at the same time modernising and improving the rest of the immigration and nationality directorate. We often forget that asylum is only a small part of broader immigration and nationality responsibilities. There have been considerable improvements in the non-asylum elements of the service, but there is still a great deal to be done.

Lynne Jones: Is my right hon. Friend not concerned that, notwithstanding the fact that the consultation period on the Bill did not comply with Cabinet Office guidelines, it has not been possible, even today, to get hold of a summary of the report on the responses to that consultation? That report is specified as a relevant document, but I could not get hold of it until 12 o'clock. Does that not cause him concern, as we are considering legislation without all the relevant information to hand?

David Blunkett: As my hon. Friend acknowledged, we laid the response to the consultation before Parliament today.

Lynne Jones: It is not in the Library.

David Blunkett: I authorised it to be placed in the Library this morning, so I apologise to the House if that has not been done—[Interruption.] I understand, however, that some Members have been able to obtain it from the Library.
	In our debate on the Queen's Speech, I spelt out the key elements in the Bill that would enhance and support the work that has already taken place. There must be a determination of honesty in relation to individuals and those advising them before the authorisation of the initial decision and the subsequent adjudication. We should consider the blocking of people who arrive at our airports, throw away documents or refuse to co-operate either with the process of determining their country of origin and their passage into the country or with redocumentation for return purposes—I shall come back to that.
	We must deal with the question of organised criminality—the way in which people, with the connivance of facilitators and organised traffickers, become involved in international trafficking and criminality. We need to extend the measures that we have already put in place on sexual exploitation, in both the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the sex offenders legislation.

Paul Flynn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not all the public feelings of antagonism towards our present system are the result of media hyperbole or invention? There has been a large increase in the criminal elements who are getting involved in the asylum process to the detriment of the public acceptability of our asylum policy—and, indeed, the acceptability of all our policies.

David Blunkett: I agree entirely. Asylum has been regarded as an opportunity by international gangs of organised criminals to make a great deal of money. Very often, they have made money out of the exploitation and degradation of people with whom they have been dealing. They take large sums of money, sometimes for children whom they have trafficked across the world and literally dumped on our soil, unfortunately in large numbers.
	Of course, those gangs have often done that alongside multiple criminal trafficking activities and the smuggling of drugs and guns. They switch between the different opportunities that they see to make money. They have obviously been doing so in the wake of worldwide people movements—the enormous movement of people across boundaries, which we have discussed in the House before—on a scale unprecedented in our history. Whereas 20 years ago, very small movements initiated by major catastrophes were the order of the day, now, partly because of communication, partly because of the English language and partly because of the economic changes in the world, people are desperate to seek a better life, as well as to seek refuge from terror, and opportunists have taken advantage of that.

David Winnick: No one disputes the amount of criminality involved, and we remember the Chinese who suffocated to death and who were undoubtedly the victims of criminal gangs, but does my right hon. Friend accept that much of the controversy over the proposals could be avoided if more attention were paid to the quality of decision making? The Home Affairs Committee report, to which I was a party, makes the point, which I am sure my right hon. Friend has noted, that, whereas one in 25 appeals was successful in 1994, the figure has risen to one in five. The quality of decision making by Home Office officials is so important, and some of the controversy about the taking away of children as a last resort could be avoided if that quality were improved.

David Blunkett: I am terribly sorry but the last point is completely irrelevant. It has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of initial decisions, or the subsequent appeals that take place. Clause 7, which we will come to in a moment, deals with those who have been through multiple appeals systems and have not had the initial decision to refuse overturned. My hon. Friend does his case no good at all by mixing the very real issue of improvements in decision making with the issue of clause 7. If hon. Members take every opportunity to use anything, no matter how extraneous or irrelevant, to deal with clause 7, we will not have a sensible debate this afternoon. I say that in all sincerity, because clause 7 relates to people who have failed to establish their right to be in the country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Blunkett: I shall give way in a moment, but first I shall address the sensible and rational issue that my hon. Friend raised—the quality of decision making. The massive increase in volume, especially over the past three years, which can be tracked in terms of the numbers coming in, has undoubtedly put enormous pressure on the system. We accept, as Ministers, that we need to take steps to improve decision making, and we have already done so. That has certainly been true of the recent steps that we have taken, including a fast-track system, building on the experience of Oakington and Harmondsworth, and ensuring that the non-suspensive appeals process is robust.
	We accept that further steps are required. My hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration is announcing today that we will work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, accept UNHCR's offer to work with our training programme to improve decision making, and undertake integrated work with the adjudication system, so that we can learn the lessons and get it right. I am happy to respond to such approaches and to the justifiable concerns expressed by hon. Members in all parts of the House to make sure that the system is administratively competent, that there are no delays and above all that we do not have to overturn on appeal.
	There is one other element. None of that discourages people from seeking the asylum route when they would be more justified in seeking legal economic migration. The steps that we have taken to secure our border controls with France are the most significant thing we can do, together with the signals to organised traffickers, to prevent people from seeking asylum when it is not asylum that they want, but a better life, offered through the massive expansion of the work permit system.

Jon Owen Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in response to the strategy that he is setting out on how to deal with asylum seekers who have failed to show that they have a right to asylum in this country, he is opposed by a fantasy island strategy and a Nelsonian blind eye strategy that pretends the problem does not exist?

David Blunkett: Yes. I am trying to match the two together—Nelson in search of a fantasy island that does not exist and that has apparently been wiped off the map by the Leader of the Opposition, who decided last week, I think, that the Opposition could not find such an island, despite the help of ITV, and that they might seek a peninsula somewhere far away instead.

Keith Vaz: I welcome the steps that my right hon. Friend has taken to improve what is happening at the immigration and nationality directorate, but one of the problems is that Home Office presentation officers do not attend court. A large number of cases are adjourned because the officers do not attend. Will he take steps, with the tribunal service, to make sure that they turn up to present their case, so that cases will not be adjourned?

David Blunkett: We have taken urgent steps, and carried out further recruitment and improved training, and there will be a new tranche of presenting officers in January, to avoid such delays and circumstances in which officers are not available, with the consequent cancellation of the hearings to which my hon. Friend refers. That is not acceptable. We understand that that aspect, like much else that we have been dealing with, needs to be improved, and we give a guarantee that it will improve in the new year. The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration is taking the issue on board, as it is extremely important.

Hugh Bayley: Many parts of the Bill touch on day-to-day immigration matters, not the controversial issues of asylum. Overseas students, whether they go to public sector institutions such as universities or further education colleges, or private language colleges, make a valuable contribution to the UK economy through their fees, and when they return to their own country, they usually leave well disposed towards the UK. Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he does not intend to use clause 20 to charge that group of applicants more than the actual cost to the Government of processing their visa applications and visa extensions? If he were to do so, it would, in effect, be a tax on an important export industry for the UK.

David Blunkett: We all accept, as I did when I was Secretary of State for Education and Employment, that we wish to maintain the high levels of application and entry to this country for qualifications. That has the advantages that my hon. Friend outlined. Clause 20 is an enabling clause. I guarantee that we will consult before laying an order. The factors that my hon. Friend mentioned will be a substantial part of our consideration, in conjunction with the Department for Education and Skills. I want to put it on record, because it is not often said, that considerable benefits arise from the availability of the education process in this country and from all the ancillary support and health facilities that go with it, which are not available in other parts of the world. That is one of the attractions for people coming, including—this is not the same thing as asylum seekers—those who bring their families and receive education for their children and access to health care. My hon. Friend makes a valid point.

Elfyn Llwyd: In light of what the Home Secretary fairly said—that decision making is, by and large, of poor quality and needs to be improved—is it not extremely unwise and possibly unjust to remove judicial oversight of the process at this stage?

David Blunkett: First, I did not use those words. I said that, given the number of appeals that were overturned, we accepted that there was room for improvement. Secondly, we are not overturning the right of appeal and it is that to which the 20 per cent. is relevant. That particular appeal is not affected by the proposition that we are putting before the House this afternoon.
	I do not simply blame the media—that is a fairly fruitless task anyway, especially at Christmas—but it is important that people do not automatically believe what they read but study what we are putting forward. That is why the provisions in the Bill streamlining the appeals and removal process, preventing the exploitation of legal services and allowing generous legal aid and advice are crucial.

Bob Blizzard: My right hon. Friend just referred to what one reads in the newspapers, but did he see the claim in a newspaper a couple of days ago that an asylum seeker in Britain receives on average about £16,000 a year in benefits? I find that hard to believe, but that is true of most of what I read in the newspapers about the asylum system. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that?

David Blunkett: There are two separate issues here. One is the total cost of processing and supporting applicants. The other is what they receive, and it is important to distinguish between the two. A family would receive less than £7,000 a year in direct support, but what was presented to the Home Affairs Committee by the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration was the total cost. We have been transparent about that and it is one of the issues with which we seek to deal, in terms of the totality of the draw-down on the public purse.

Marsha Singh: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that the fast-track procedure at Harmondsworth has been extremely successful, but does he also agree that, this being the fifth immigration and asylum Bill to come before the House, the real problem, apart from entry, is removals, and if we can get that right, we can crack the system? The level of removals is still very low. Will my right hon. Friend give us a guarantee that this time we will crack that issue and that we will not be back here in a year's time with another Bill?

David Blunkett: I think that all agree that removals are important, but let me take this opportunity to set out the challenge. It is important to understand the difficulty that we face on removals. We have increased the number of removals to 1,500 or 1,600 a month, which is now over 18,000 on an annualised basis. We separately remove 1,300 people a month, and the figure is rising, who are here illegally but who, before we managed to remove them, did not claim asylum. We have separately managed each month to stop 3,000 clandestines getting into the country. The total picture is rarely presented because in our media, which I have already said I love, one set of people is told to present the worst possible side of asylum and immigration and another is completely convinced that it is not an issue and that it should present the matter as though we have some sort of obsession. Neither reflects the reality. The developed world is addressing a difficult challenge and we are part of that process.
	The difficulty in removals is not simply fast-tracking, giving people their final decision and then putting them on a plane or a boat; it is the process that stops us from being able to achieve the goal. First, there are legal constraints, which is why we intend to improve and streamline the appeals and judicial review process. Secondly, there is the issue of documentation. Even if individuals or families are held in a secure removal centre, they cannot be removed without the documentation that allows the country of origin to take them back. That is a crunch issue, because 70 per cent. of applicants either have never had or have thrown away their documents. Many of them are now being advised, sometimes by disreputable people, that if they do not co-operate in the redocumentation process we cannot remove them, and therefore we will continue to sustain them. Therefore, without the documentation required by the receiving country, we have the devil's own job to trigger compulsory removal, which we are undertaking, and without a country to receive them, we have nowhere to remove them to. We cannot eject them into outer space.
	The complexity of these issues is growing by the day. Every time we close a loophole, the facilitators and those behind them, and many advising those who claim asylum, tell them what to do. I understand such advice from those who are dedicatedly against any removals, with their campaigns for what they call no deportation, but in terms of fulfilling public policy and having a system that works and is trusted, and in which people have confidence, we are constantly fighting a battle to close the loopholes and thwart those who will use any ends to make a monkey of the system.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does my right hon. Friend have any concerns about the conditions faced by people who, after an unsuccessful asylum application here, are deported to a country from which they have fled and who may then be open to abuse and intimidation? What monitoring is undertaken by his Department or in British posts abroad, and what consideration is given to the safety of such people when they return?

David Blunkett: The whole system is geared not to send people back to countries where they will be threatened with death and torture. That is the whole basis of the 1951 convention and of our immigration and asylum laws, and will remain so. Secondly, people whose individual claims fail, but whose country of origin, to which we would usually return them, is considered unsafe, are not returned. That is the serious problem that we face with regard to people who have no legal right to be here but whom we cannot remove on humanitarian grounds—and we do not intend to change that. We of course monitor and take the international, as well as national, in-country assessment. As a consequence of the previous legislation we agreed to have an advisory group and to take further advice, so we are going out of our way not to send such people back. Even if people inside or outside the House disagree with the Bill, when we return people who have failed all their claims and whom we can return to a country that we believe to be safe, where appropriate we shall assist them with resettlement, as we are doing at present with regard to Afghanistan.

Mike Hancock: The Home Secretary said that there was evidence to support the view that 3,000 clandestines were prevented from coming into the United Kingdom each month, and I should be grateful if he would substantiate that claim. Will he also clarify—[Interruption.] The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration laughs, but the Home Secretary made the claim, and it is worth having it substantiated. Secondly, what will the Bill do to make easier the removal of people with no documentation? The House appreciates the problems that the Home Secretary explained, but I cannot see anything in the Bill that will make that task easier.

David Blunkett: On the first point, the statistics relate to those who are turned back at the new border controls in France—and now in Belgium, where we have put in place facilities at Zeebrugge—and therefore do not claim asylum at our ports and airports. The statistical facts on those people, who are turned away because they have no legitimate right to be in the country, are on the record. Presumably, people do not know about that because we do not shout about it loudly enough, but I have every intention of doing so from here on in.
	On redocumentation, we are working with countries across the world from where large numbers of returnable people seek asylum, to get them to accept simplified and speeded-up measures for acceptance of nationality or a simplified redocumentation system. We are putting in place a system to guard against those who throw away their documents when they get off the plane—bearing in mind the fact that they must have had a passport and other documents to get on it in the first place. That includes our consultation on copying relevant parts of those documents to ensure that we are able to present the facts to the person's country of origin. That measure will assist us substantially.

Martin Salter: Does the Home Secretary acknowledge the damage that is done to community relations when many decent citizens without a racist bone in their bodies become understandably frustrated by the fact that after several years of different pieces of legislation from Governments of two different political persuasions, there remain massive delays in processing, a degree of profiteering by certain unscrupulous lawyers and advisers, and extensive profiteering by private landlords, all at the taxpayer's expense? What will the Bill do to address those issues?

David Blunkett: I agree with my hon. Friend's analysis. That is the kind of discontent and disquiet that others feed on and use to cause friction, break down social cohesion and damage race relations. That is why, through the administrative changes in the Bill, we stress that people should be honest in terms of their presentation of the facts and their willingness to give evidence on what has happened to them. The Bill will help us to tackle organised criminality; to strengthen our borders; to speed up the system, including the adjudication and appeals process; to tackle bogus advice; and to deal with legal aid.
	As well as taking measures to ensure that people have to present their case honestly, retain their documents and tell the truth about their country of origin, we need to be sensitive in understanding the difficulties that some asylum seekers face when they reach the country. The process and the legality of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 was upheld by the courts, and we intend to respond to that through the Bill. The measures that we are introducing, following discussions with refugee organisations, will allow us to be more flexible in assessing whether people have been in the country for any length of time. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration will announce today that we will provide to those who make the decisions the necessary adjustment in advice to allow them—subject to people's giving an honest account of how they reached the country and how long they have been here—72 hours, rather than the current 24 hours, in relation to people claiming asylum and being entitled to benefit.

Evan Harris: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for making that point about greater flexibility in relation to the time that is taken to apply for asylum. Another problem is the difficulty that the National Asylum Support Service faces in accepting that, a decision having been made, a person is really without any means of support and qualifies for assistance under section 55(4) of the 2002 Act. Apparently, several hundred applications to court have not been opposed by NASS in cases where court orders have been given instructing it to provide support for people who, having had an adverse decision, find themselves on the street and destitute. Will the Home Secretary accept that that is a second component where more flexibility is required?

David Blunkett: Where a court indicates through judicial review that we have an obligation to reconsider the case or to provide support, we will of course do so. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman make known to my hon. Friend the Minister of State any examples of cases where that is not being done.

Iain Coleman: Will the Home Secretary give way?

David Blunkett: In a moment. I should explain that I now intend to move through the clauses so that Members are able to intervene at relevant points. However, I shall give way once more if my hon. Friend has a general rather than a specific point.

Iain Coleman: With reference to the Home Secretary's comments on section 55 of the 2002 Act, does he recall the informal discussions that he had with me, and a number of my hon. Friends, prior to its introduction? My recollection—I stand to be corrected by the Home Secretary—is that we were told that it was not the Government's intention to use the powers in section 55 for people who had just arrived in the United Kingdom, and that we were talking about not 24 hours or 72 hours but, at the very minimum, weeks, if not months.

David Blunkett: I think that during that meeting we moved delphically from 72 hours to a period of months. I have never said that those who have been in this country for months could establish a claim to asylum. The purpose of section 55 was to prevent those who had been in the country for other purposes, on other visas and for other requirements from finding themselves destitute and deciding that this route was the fastest and most effective way of gaining public support in relation to subsistence and housing. We indicated that that was not the correct way in which to do so.
	Asylum is about those who are threatened with death and torture escaping from that and seeking sanctuary in this country. We offer that sanctuary readily, but on the basis that when people arrive they demonstrate that they are asylum seekers, not economic seekers of a better life or people who have come for other purposes and do not want to go back home. I am seeking, with my hon. Friend the Minister, to ensure that we show a deal of flexibility within the requirement, so that people should be prepared to co-operate with us. That is not unfair—it is something for something, which is the principle that we apply in terms of the welfare provision offered to the indigenous population of this country.
	Clauses 1 to 5 tackle illegal immigration and abuse of the system, and clause 2 is specific about the undocumented arrivals that I mentioned. I shall not go into that again, because most people would accept that it is unacceptable to throw away evidence of where one has come from and which plane one arrived on, and that we should take action on that.

Gwyn Prosser: I support the Bill and the measures that the Home Secretary has introduced in past years, mainly because of the effects in my constituency: I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) said about the way in which community relationships can be destroyed by a feeling that the situation is out of control. However, will my right hon. Friend give us some assurances and securities in relation to specific clauses? For instance, as regards people coming in without documentation and destroying their documentation deliberately, can he assure us that he will go to some lengths to inform incoming passengers that that will be a penalised offence, so that they do not take the advice of the traffickers, tear up their documents and end up being prosecuted unnecessarily?

David Blunkett: That is a sensible point. We should work with sea and air carriers to ensure that the message is clearly conveyed. We have tried to make more sophisticated the subsidiary ruling on airports in relation to section 55 of the 2002 Act. At one stage, we were almost being asked to provide public address systems at airports to tell people that if they wanted to claim they should do it immediately. That struck us as a trifle odd, but I accept the thrust of the helpful suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser); I believe that it would help people to thwart traffickers and facilitators.

David Heath: Further to that point, would it not be even more satisfactory if, at the embarkation points, we had copies of asylum seekers' travel documents, which would detail likely points of departure? Even if they destroyed the documents, we would then know their identity. Could not such a responsibility be placed on carriers?

David Blunkett: We are consulting on precisely that point. We are in discussion with Departments that have an interest in the matter. I should like to ensure that such a liability did not interfere with free competition or disadvantage British-based carriers. We should try to ensure that that does not happen. Any such provision would be in conjunction with the purchase and presentation of a ticket and run alongside the visa regime which applies to countries where visas are required.
	Clause 6 deals with people's preparedness to give a reasonable explanation. I have commented on that in the context of thwarting facilitators, and that is linked to clause 2. Clauses 4 and 5 introduce a new criminal offence and build on the powers that relate to sexual exploitation, which I mentioned earlier.
	The behaviour of those who are authorised to take steps to provide credibility will be important. The credibility of the claim, and the credibility clause, as we may deem clause 6, will enable us to respond to the debate a few moments ago about providing a better, faster and more sensible method of dealing with the initial decision. Adverse behaviour makes a hell of a difference in such circumstances. The countries through which people have passed, the way in which they present their claim, timings and much else will be considered.
	I hope that hon. Members will give me a moment to explain our thinking on clause 7. There is disquiet about our holding families in detention centres when their claims have failed and they are in the process of being redocumented or given removal directions. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration responded to concerns about children who are held in those centres by saying that there will be what might be called a ministerial lock. The Minister will not only monitor but have to approve any lengthy stay in removal centres. The conditions in which families are held in those centres have been and will continue to be improved.
	Some people fundamentally oppose holding families in removal centres, however. Some fundamentally oppose compulsory removal of families—picking up children and families, putting them on a plane and removing them. Anxieties about that have already been expressed this afternoon. Some people, including some hon. Members, are worried about the withdrawal of public support from those who have been through a lengthy process, including multiple referrals by letter and interview, and a 14-day stay while the family is further informed about what will happen.

Annabelle Ewing: rose—

Hilton Dawson: rose—

David Blunkett: I shall give way to both hon. Members shortly.
	Some people oppose all three measures that I outlined and believe that if people will not leave, we should simply do nothing and accept the position as a burden of a modern, economically successful country. I do not agree with that.

Annabelle Ewing: The Home Secretary mentioned the comments that the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration made yesterday. She said that children would be held in Dungavel removal centre for an initial period of 28 days and thereafter, they would be subject to a ministerial review. Does not the Home Secretary accept that for a child, 28 days at Dungavel is 28 days too long? Surely, as a plain-speaking man, he accepts that that will punish innocent children for the actions of their parents. By what means will the Bill exclude the competence and jurisdiction of the children's panel system in Scotland, which has primacy over the matter?

David Blunkett: The hon. Lady knows that the issue is reserved. There has been a massive campaign about Dungavel. The average time families are held in removal centres is 10 days because there are some long-stay cases, but the bulk of cases are dealt with in five or six days. On Monday this week, 38 children were held in removal centres in the United Kingdom. I regret the holding of any child in a removal centre and I want other measures to be applied to avoid that happening. They include encouraging people to be redocumented and supporting them with free return and, when appropriate, resettlement. That is why, in a sensible debate, people cannot simply rule out every possible measure to achieve a public policy goal and then criticise the Government for failing to achieve it.

Hilton Dawson: I welcome the news of progress on monitoring children and families in detention centres. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the oversight will include input from the relevant social services authority with child protection responsibilities? In expressing frustration about the way in which some asylum seekers try to thwart the system, will my right hon. Friend also confirm that their children are highly unlikely to have played any part in the decision either to come to this country or to try to evade immigration authorities?

David Blunkett: First, I accept that social services have a highly relevant and appropriate central role to play in protection and in our education programme. On my hon. Friend's second point, of course I accept that the children are not responsible for their parents' decisions, but neither are we. We have to deal with children and support them wherever we can, consequent on the decisions and responsibility of their parents.
	We are considering an issue of fundamental values. The primary concern of parents is the well-being of their children. That should come first, second and third. If it is in the interests of that well-being to comply with sensible and sensitive removal to the country of origin when asylum seekers have failed to establish their claim that they faced the threat of death and torture, they must take responsibility and accept the consequences. Parents, not only the state, must take responsibility for consequences. I reiterate that the state has an important role of last resort. However, in a civilised society, it is our job to protect children and not to give way to, second-guess or replace parents' responsibility for the care of their children.

Hilton Dawson: I accept my right hon. Friend's comments, but does he agree that much of the welfare state's work is protecting children from the consequences of their parents' actions, and that, by and large, that should be done by keeping families together?

David Blunkett: As someone who was a chairman of social services for four years and dealt with difficult issues, such as removing children from their families, I accept my hon. Friend's point. I accept that we should take every possible step to ensure that children are well cared for, supported and maintained in their family unless they are at risk. As we have seen cases from Maria Caldwell all the way through to Victoria Climbié, our only objective is to protect children's interests when the decisions of adults whose care they have been in—parents or otherwise—have led to their being at risk. When they are at risk, we intervene to care for them.

Mark Oaten: Will the Home Secretary give an absolute commitment that social services will be informed at the point at which a decision is taken to withdraw benefit from a family with children, so that social services are not brought in too late?

David Blunkett: The obligation on the family is, first, to accept the removal directions and to be removed—we shall be tracking these families—and secondly, if they are in distress, to indicate that that is the case so that we can take the appropriate steps, including, as a logical conclusion of destitution, although not as part of the Bill, supporting the tiny number of children whose parents have taken such a contrary decision that it has put those children at risk. That is the normal practice. We are not in the business of trying to engineer a situation in which children are at risk and destitute and have to be taken into care. That is neither the role of the state nor the will of the Government. Had this issue not been totally distorted publicly after three weeks of the initial consultation, we might have been able to hold this debate on a more sensible basis.

Diane Abbott: The whole House will agree with the Home Secretary that the actions of adults have consequences. However, the question at issue in relation to clause 7 is whether those actions should have consequences that are visited on the heads of children.

David Blunkett: In every circumstance in which parents make decisions and are held responsible—whether it is parents who engage in unlawful action, parents who neglect or abuse their children, or parents who are no longer in receipt of benefits as a result of their actions—we have to take steps. In the domestic situation—and I am familiar with the legislation—section 1 of the Children Act 1989 enables social services, in extremis, to intervene financially. What we are saying is that we are prepared to intervene financially: we are prepared to pay the fare and provide support to those being returned to their country of origin. [Interruption.] That pager might have been providing an answer that I needed to give to the House. I thought I had better pause for a moment in case it was something vital. What we are not prepared to do is to get ourselves into the situation in which parents, having gone through all the processes that I have described, know that we will not withdraw public support from them because they have a child. In those circumstances, what chance would we have of getting the growing number of people being advised not to co-operate with re-documentation and removal to leave? That is the simple public question: what do we do, and what do people expect?
	Our actions have consequences, as do the decisions of parents. Through our actions, we have identified a massive and growing problem: 70 per cent. of those claiming asylum do not have documents, and many are not co-operating with re-documentation. They are being advised by those who should know better to "play the game". So what do we do? Do we simply say, "If you are a family, when you touch British soil, you are here for ever"? We cannot do that and have a credible system.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Blunkett: I shall give way in a moment.
	Let us bear in mind the fact that, when one hon. Member said earlier that the real issue was removals, there was an enormous number of "Hear, hears" around the Chamber. I can say, "Hear, hear," to the removal of those who have no legal right to be in the country, but not to taking away any steps that we put forward to make that a reality. It is the challenge of a legislature to make decisions, to ask the Executive to implement policies that are both credible and administratively possible, and to back them in taking those difficult decisions forward. When we were debating the previous legislation, I said—this is in Hansard—that I believed that people would encourage us to step up removal, but that there would be tears when removal was implemented. That is the case.

John Denham: My right hon. Friend knows that the Home Affairs Committee and I support the principle behind clause 7, as I hope to explain later. I welcome the fact that, earlier this afternoon, he said that he was looking again at the way in which section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is being applied, perhaps because some of the consequences had been harsher than the House or he intended. Does he take from that the fact that the House must look very carefully at how the Government would implement clause 7 in practice, to ensure that it achieves the outcomes that he wants, rather than resulting in consequences that we would find unacceptable?

David Blunkett: I accept that stricture from my right hon. Friend. I am pleased that his Committee is not recommending that clause 7 be removed from the Bill. I accept that, as with so much legislation, it is crucial that the Executive are properly scrutinised and that the House—including the Home Affairs Committee, which my right hon. Friend chairs—does that job. That is part of Parliament's democratic role, and it is a very important one. If we can be shown to be in the wrong in terms of the way in which we apply legislation administratively, or to be too harsh or too soft, the House should hold us to account. While I cannot engage in a subjective judgment, as requested by the Select Committee, in terms of predictions of numbers, I can assure its Chairman that we will present all the facts to it and keep it informed on how we are implementing this legislation.

Andrew Turner: I am sure that many of us sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman in terms of the very difficult decisions that he is trying to balance in the Bill. He referred to people who ought to know better giving poor advice, and to people making a monkey of the legislation. Does he have—or will he take—the power to withdraw legal aid contracts from firms of solicitors that consistently give poor advice, propose failed appeals and bring forward failing arguments?

David Blunkett: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs is to implement a review of the legal aid system, which will apply from April, and, with the Legal Services Commission, a new accreditation system for those providing advice—not to withdraw the accreditation but to ensure that there is proper monitoring. We are also strengthening the powers of the commissioner in the Bill so that he can achieve what the hon. Gentleman is seeking, in the interests of good advice and public probity and of ensuring that the very large tranches of public money that are going into the system are used wisely.

Keith Bradley: I seek further clarification on clause 7. I have here a briefing which states that
	"local authorities will have to take whatever action is necessary to protect the children. In most cases, this would not involve taking children into care".
	Will the Home Secretary clarify exactly what actions local authorities should take where they do not take children into care?

David Blunkett: There might be family friends and members of the community who are able to assist. Let us bear in mind that 30,000 people in London receive benefit only, and not accommodation, and therefore are presumed to be accommodated by the host community or by family and relatives in this country.That is an interesting point in itself. We were enjoined not to withdraw benefit only when we introduced the measure in the 2002 Act, and we have not done so, because we have listened to the requests of hon. Members not to do that.
	Those in a responsible position should give advice and support to families to encourage them to take up the offer of voluntary as opposed to enforced removal. Other measures in the Bill will assist us with enforced removal. With the fast-track process and better notification of the removal directions when the final appeal is turned down, we should be able to achieve a more streamlined system.

Neil Gerrard: I want to return to the issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). The Home Secretary is asking us to accept that very few children will be taken into care or be made destitute as a result of clause 7, but large numbers of people could be affected. It is a question of how the provision will be implemented. Some of us have studied section 55 of the 2002 Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman) asked for an assurance that that would not be used against people who have been in the country for only a short time—a matter of days. However, as we have just been told, the practice was 24 hours. I have a letter issued two months ago to someone who was denied support and had been in the country for one hour. How are we expected to accept assurances when that is our experience of what has happened under section 55?

David Blunkett: rose—

Janet Dean: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Blunkett: I shall give way in a moment, but I would be grateful if I could first answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard).
	There are two separate issues: one is the individual's claim and the other is the credibility of the claim. Any individual can claim that they arrived only an hour ago, depending on where they arrived from and what mode of transport had got them within an hour of being able to make their claim.

Neil Gerrard: That was accepted.

David Blunkett: If it was accepted that the person had arrived an hour ago, their claim to enter the asylum process and to receive support, including at an induction centre or through the fast-track process, in which the country of origin may be taken into account and the non-suspensive appeal may apply, should have been put in place. I am happy to take my hon. Friend's complaint if the procedure was not followed and the situation was badly handled.
	I acknowledge that in the period after the 2002 Act was passed a year ago we had multiple claims from people in-country who had been here for some time and whose credibility was in considerable doubt. We believe that in the circumstances that we are now addressing, alongside the legislation dealing with greater credibility, we should exercise a degree of flexibility. I am happy to take criticism for having been too harsh, but I will not take such criticism when I have actually been more flexible and have acknowledged that what is being said to us has merit and we have changed our minds.
	I shall give way one more time, to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean).

Janet Dean: It is clearly nonsense for the asylum system to be run in such a way that those who fail in their claim can carry on receiving public money. But will my right hon. Friend assure the House that people who have failed in their claim receive adequate warning that public funds will be taken away from them? That is vital when children are involved.

David Blunkett: I can give that absolute assurance. There will be multiple notifications, interviews and a further period of notice. People will be clearly informed of the consequences. The whole intention is to have a process that avoids that problem. The fast-track process, the sensible operation of removals, including encouragement to leave voluntarily, resettlement help and, despite the difficulties of planning consent, the experimental accommodation centres, were all designed to achieve precisely that. We want people either to move through induction to accommodation, receive a validated claim and be integrated, or to receive a removal direction and be removed immediately from the accommodation centre—as opposed to a secure removal centre, where we have to hold people in secure provision. Someone has always been against all that in one form or another.
	The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration and I just have to accept that we will not satisfy everyone, either this afternoon or during the operation of the system. I respect the view of those who believe that, whatever the circumstances, families should continue to receive benefit on the ground that there may be some detriment to their child as a consequence of their decision. I understand and respect that view, but I cannot agree it as public policy.
	I want to move on to clause 10, because I am sure that hon. Members will want to discuss the issue of decisive speed and effectiveness in dealing with the present system. Clause 10, together with schedule 2, will introduce the fast, speeded-up single tier of appeal. An appeal will be retained, and within the single tier multiple tracks for different forms of application. There will be an appeal to the president of the immigration appeal tribunal, and the ability on points of law to challenge whether the initial decision of appeal adjudicators was correct. A case can also go from the president of the single tier to the Court of Appeal when a point of law requires to be tested.
	We believe that that will cut out the terrible situation in which, despite the adjudication system, which weeds out initial decisions that are doubtful, we end up with months and sometimes years of prevarication before action can be taken. We recommend to the House that we should move along those lines judiciously and sensibly to make the system work.
	As with non-suspensive appeals, the different tracks will enable us to test a case when there is an unusual or new situation. I think hon. Members will agree that that process has been implemented with some care.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: What will happen if one of these tribunals exceeds its power, perhaps grossly, or reaches a decision on the facts that no reasonable tribunal could have arrived at? Under the Bill, there is no provision for appeal. How will such decisions be reviewed?

David Blunkett: There will be an appeal within the single tier to the president of the adjudication system—I am talking about judges, some of whom are part-time and some full-time. They will make a decision on whether the application made to the president is valid. That does not involve the case having to leave the single tier, and the president of the adjudication system will be able to make a judgment as to whether the application fits the criteria specifically—my hon. and learned Friend uses the word "specifically", because that is appropriate for such an application—and whether it should be referred to the Court of Appeal. I think that that is a reasonable process to adopt, so that we do not end up with judicial review after judicial review on claims that are not valid.
	Clause 11 concerns safe countries. I think most people would agree that ours is a reasonable proposition in terms of the groups affected. Clause 12 is merely a tidying-up exercise, as are clauses 13 and 14. Clause 15 will allow us in the future to use new technical developments, primarily to avoid the need for people to be in secure accommodation. It is envisaged that they will be able to choose whether to be in a secure removal centre or, if the technology allows it, to use that technology to enable their whereabouts to be traced. Clauses 16 to 19 concern immigration advisers and the new powers of the Immigration Services Commissioner. I have answered a question about clause 20, relating to charges reflecting the totality of the benefit available and to the consultation we are undertaking.
	I sincerely hope that in the next 18 months my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I will have a full night's sleep. I hope that we will answer fewer parliamentary questions, sign fewer letters and attract less acrimony, and that we may even be the subject of the odd complimentary leader in The Guardian—although I am not holding my breath. I also hope that we will have a system which, legally, administratively and in terms of competence, satisfies the requirements of what I believe to be the overwhelming majority of Members. That will be in the interests of a system and a process that work, but above all it will be in the interests of good race and community relations, and of the ability to give a warm welcome to people from around the world who—as I said at Chatham House a month ago—should be welcomed here, in a diverse, open society.
	If there comes a time when we can have the sort of debate that I asked for a month ago but did not get, I for one will be a much happier man.

Humfrey Malins: I echo the Home Secretary's comments about the Soham trial, and welcome the investigation to which he referred.
	I apologise profusely for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), who is confined to his bed with flu. With slightly gritted teeth, I wish him a speedy recovery. I hoped that he might have recovered yesterday. The House will understand that I, more than most, regret his absence today, but I wish him well.
	The hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) made a brief reference to the fact that one day in June 2000, some three and a half years ago, we woke to a shocking headline in our newspapers: 54 Chinese had been found suffocated in the back of a van at Dover. They were all young people—four were women—and they had suffered appalling deaths, having travelled across the continent of Europe to reach this country under the influence of criminal gangs. To any decent and civilised person, it should not matter whether they were genuine refugees or merely economic migrants in search of a better life. The fact is that these were young lives needlessly lost.
	That tragedy brought the debate about asylum and immigration policy into sharp focus. It is a debate that has been very necessary. I think—and I thank the Home Secretary for all his contributions during his time in office—that we in the House have engaged in it rationally and sensibly—an approach that, sadly, has not always been adopted in the press and other media.
	We are all agreed on one proposition: that our asylum system must be humane, and we must continue our long and honourable tradition of giving safe refuge to the persecuted. Along with humanity, however, there must be efficiency. I contend that our current system lacks efficiency, and is beginning to lack humanity.

Keith Vaz: As the hon. Gentleman will know, the present Government inherited a large backlog from the previous Government. He was involved in that Government as Parliamentary Private Secretary to, I think, a Home Office Minister. Does he not agree that his party shares some of the responsibility for not ensuring that the system was more efficient when the present Government took office?

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Gentleman should never forget that under the present Government, the number of asylum applicants has trebled. He should never forget that this Government have been in power for nearly seven years. He should never forget that under the previous Conservative Government we had a treaty with France under which those who turned up illegally on our shores were returned to France, and that the treaty lapsed and was never renegotiated. I will never forget that I was not here during that Parliament: the electors of Croydon, North-West had said goodbye to me in 1992.
	I was saying that our current asylum system had begun to lack not just humanity but efficiency. Indeed, it is now widely accepted that it has reached a state of almost total collapse. For a start, many of us would agree that the wrong people are claiming asylum. It is claimed almost entirely by those who reach the United Kingdom illegally, or those who, having come here legally, try to overstay. Unlawful entry normally requires the paid services of people-smugglers—the criminal gangs who take vast sums from their victims by extortion and threats. Many of those who claim asylum have the economic resources to get here; they are not destitute, or the most deserving of help.
	Furthermore, our system has been characterised by delay and inefficiency for many years. I believe that in recent times the Home Office has been overwhelmed by the number of applications.

Tom Harris: The hon. Gentleman says that those with money, who can pay the people-traffickers, are less deserving of asylum, while the more "destitute" deserve it. Is he not making a case for economic migrants to use the asylum system to come here on false pretences?

Humfrey Malins: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I am merely saying that there are those with the money to cross the continent to get here, and that the most persecuted are often the poorest. They simply have not the resources to travel any distance from their own countries.
	As I have said, the number of asylum applications has almost overwhelmed the Government. Last year the number of people seeking to come to Britain for asylum topped 110,000. That figure is the highest in Europe, and it is three times as high as the number claiming asylum in the last year of the Conservative Government. I do not believe that the Home Office has been able to cope with the volume of applications, and there is a growing feeling that the Government are beginning to lose control of our borders. Here is the rub: the Government believe that by legislating they can cure inefficiency and a discredited system. Legislation, however, is not the answer. The answer is to have practical operations working properly.
	Let me say gently to the Home Secretary—who could probably say the same to me of my party—that we legislate too often and too hastily. Today we are discussing the second major piece of legislation introduced by the Home Secretary in two years: the ink is hardly dry on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. As the House will recall, the flagship policy of that Bill was the establishment of accommodation centres where asylum seekers would live. The Government, of course, got it wrong then, ignoring advice from all the experts and proposing centres that were far too large and in the wrong places.

Tony Baldry: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is absolutely nothing humane in placing large numbers of asylum seekers in huge accommodation centres in the middle of the countryside? Will he confirm that an incoming Conservative Government would abandon such a policy?

Humfrey Malins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I pay tribute to the work that he has done on his constituents' behalf in respect of the proposed accommodation centre in his constituency. He has worked tirelessly on their behalf. No, we are not in favour of large accommodation centres being established in the wrong places, and we were backed up in that—[Interruption.] An hon. Member says from a sedentary position, "In Banbury", but, as we know, all the experts outside this House say, "Keep the accommodation centres small, and keep them near urban areas, rather than rural ones."

Marsha Singh: I have served with the hon. Gentleman on the Home Affairs Committee, where we discussed these and other issues. Does he accept that it is something of an exaggeration to say that the system is collapsing? It has got better under the legislation that we have passed, and it will get better still under this Bill. Does he accept, however, that it was near to collapse when the previous Government introduced a hopeless IT system and sacked 1,200 experienced immigration officers?

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Gentleman has a distinguished record on the Home Affairs Committee, so I had anticipated an extremely friendly intervention; I am only mildly disappointed. The previous Conservative Government did many very good things in the asylum field, one of which I have already mentioned. We had a treaty with France, whereby people were returned there forthwith when they arrived here illegally. The treaty lapsed and has never been renewed by this Government, despite my pressing them on many occasions to do so.

Gwyn Prosser: rose—

Humfrey Malins: I give way to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser), with whom, I should point out in advance of his intervention, I shared very happy times on the Home Affairs Committee.

Gwyn Prosser: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that, but I am afraid that he will get an equally unfriendly intervention from me. Does he not remember that it was the current Leader of the Opposition who signed up to a Dublin convention that was designed never to work, and that on the day that he did so, the original arrangements collapsed? That is the real reason why we were no longer able to send people back to France.

Humfrey Malins: With respect, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The agreement lapsed, but there was nothing to prevent this Government from working tooth and nail to renegotiate it.
	I was referring to accommodation centres, the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) and the Government's flawed policy. The House will not be surprised to hear that, some 18 months after the introduction of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, not one single accommodation centre is yet up and running. That shows that although we can discuss legislation for weeks and months and ram it through this House at great pace, it does not equate with efficiency. We legislate too quickly: after Second Reading of the 2002 Act, the Government added 342 of their own amendments and 25 new clauses.
	What about this Bill and the consultation period? Frankly, that period has been disgracefully short—a view shared by many on the Government Benches.

Bob Blizzard: The hon. Gentleman may remember that in the Queen's Speech debate I intervened on the Leader of the Opposition to ask him whether they were going to oppose this Bill, at which point he launched into a tirade against it. Are they going to oppose it, or do they intend to allow failed asylum seekers to continue to receive benefit for long periods? Was the performance of the Leader of the Opposition just for show?

Humfrey Malins: My right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition was particularly opposed to a matter relating to children, to which I shall turn in a moment. I am afraid that I missed the hon. Gentleman's intervention during the Queen's Speech debate, although that had nothing to do with the fact that there was a one-line Whip. I should point out to him that I have a long track record in the world of asylum and immigration. There are some things in the Bill to which I can give qualified support; in other respects, I want to tidy it up and improve it in Committee. We do not even know whether there will be a vote on it later today—at least, I do not. However, I should point out that there is much in it with which I do not agree, and which must be improved in Committee or in the other House. That view is shared not just by my Conservative colleagues, but by the vast majority of Labour Back Benchers.

Hilton Dawson: Is the hon. Gentleman really trying to tell us in his gentlemanly way that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was shedding crocodile tears when he made that vehement statement about children in care?

Humfrey Malins: Quite the contrary. My right hon. and learned Friend—incidentally, he himself has a refugee background—was expressing justified concern, which has also been expressed across the nation, about the possible treatment of children under one of the Bill's clauses. I shall return to that point and make my feelings quite clear.
	The Government wrote to interested parties with their proposals on 27 October. They set the wholly unrealistic deadline for responses of 15 working days, completely contrary to Cabinet Office guidelines. The Bill itself was published only nine working days after the deadline for responses. My guess is that it was printed before the consultation period even began, and I should not be surprised if the Government flood this House and the Committee with amendments.
	The Home Secretary will point to improvements that have taken place in the past few months, such as a drop in the number of asylum applicants. It is possible that the Government deserve some credit for that, and I pay tribute to him if it is true that any of his measures have indeed improved the system, but before he becomes too smug—he has never been so in the past—let us ponder the following facts. The number of asylum seekers is still much higher than under the previous Conservative Government. Secondly, there has been a policy U-turn, involving the reintroduction of Conservative proposals that the Labour Government condemned and scrapped; indeed, that may be a factor. Thirdly, the recent drop in asylum claims may in part have been achieved by letting greater numbers into Britain by other means. Legal immigration is up dramatically. Hundreds of extra Home Office staff are granting thousands more work permits. Because we do not count people out, and because our borders are not secure, nobody knows how many illegal immigrants are in this country. Indeed, the Home Secretary confessed recently that he did not have a clue how many illegal immigrants there were. He could have added that, after nearly seven years, the Government still do not have a clue about how to manage an efficient system.
	Let me focus on one or two of the Government's failures, which I hope the Home Secretary is prepared to accept. First, they have abjectly failed in their policy for removing failed asylum seekers. That failure strikes at the credibility of the whole system; indeed, the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) referred to it. That credibility was further damaged when the Home Secretary announced a series of amnesties for failed asylum seekers. Many in the country were dismayed at his recent announcement of an amnesty for up to 50,000 people whose asylum claims had failed. Surely a key ingredient in the integrity of any asylum process is the Government's ability to remove those found not to be in need of protection. The story so far has been one of Government failure—a fact confirmed by the Government's own Back Benchers in a series of Home Affairs Committee reports.

Diane Abbott: The hon. Gentleman criticises the Government for the level of removals, but is it not true that the level was not much higher under the Conservative Government? [Interruption.] Indeed—it was lower. It is easy to call for many more removals, but in fact it is a very difficult and contentious thing to achieve.

Humfrey Malins: I agree with the hon. Lady that it is a very difficult thing to achieve. I also agree that the previous Conservative Government did not remove every failed asylum seeker, but she should not forget that the problem is getting worse. I hope that she understands that there are tens of thousands more failed asylum seekers than there were seven years ago.
	Let us have a look at the comments of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. It was three years ago, I say to the hon. Lady, if she is prepared to listen—[Interruption.] She is not. It was three years ago that the Home Affairs Committee, dominated by the Labour party, concluded that this Government had been dilatory in enforcing removals. It added that that in itself had attracted more people to the UK. There was further criticism of the Government on removals by the same Committee in spring this year. A glance at the statistics illustrates the problem. Last year was one of the worst on record. Of 45,000 failed asylum seekers who should have left, only 10,000 went through removals and voluntary departures. What kind of efficiency is it when barely one in five failed asylum seekers are being removed from the UK?
	The Government compound the problem by setting themselves targets to try to grab the headlines. They had a target of removing 30,000 failed asylum seekers per year, rising to 37,000 by 2003–04, but what on earth is the point of setting a target if it is so unrealistic that it cannot be met and has to be abandoned? Again, as the Home Affairs Committee has remarked, what on earth was the basis for the belief at the time that the target was achievable? A target that is not reached and is dropped serves only to arouse false expectations of what can be done. That failure results in a drop in morale among all concerned.
	There is another basic failure, which is at the beginning of the asylum process: the Government's continued refusal to understand that initial decisions must be fast and of the highest standard. At the moment, I do not believe that they are either. A parliamentary answer in June 2002 revealed that the average time for a Home Office official to reach an initial decision on an asylum application was seven months. It further revealed that at that time nearly 20,000 cases had been awaiting an initial decision for more than six months. Some 16,000 cases had been outstanding for more than 12 months. That was in 2002 and, to the Government's credit, times for initial decisions are coming down, but it is a slow process and it will take years to catch up. Even today, with the vast resources and money poured into the system, considerably more than 20,000 applications per year have to wait more than two months even for an initial decision.
	What of the quality of those decisions? They are made largely by inexperienced Home Office officials who are on a starting salary of £15,500 per year—two thirds of the national average. With only 27 days of training, those officials have to make decisions that can literally mean life or death to the applicant. They are neither paid nor trained well enough to deal with those complex issues. I wonder whether the Home Secretary knows what the turnover rate of such staff is. It is a telling but unsurprising fact that considerably more than 20 per cent. of appeals against their decisions are successful. The percentage used to be 4 per cent. In relation to some countries, the successful appeal rate against initial decisions is even higher. That must surely concern us all, and it has certainly concerned the Labour-dominated Home Affairs Committee.
	The inefficiency at the early stage of the process is compounded by the fact that at most appeals before an adjudicator the Home Office simply does not have a presenting officer present to argue its case. I ask the Home Secretary, what has happened in the past year to cause so many part-time and full-time adjudicators to bemoan the fact that the Home Office has simply stopped providing representation before them? That failure can only lead to more delays and, in practice, a greater likelihood of appeals being allowed.
	With that background, it can be no surprise that the Government have largely lost the confidence of the British people. I wish that they would take our advice and concentrate on an expert and timely initial decision-making process, coupled with an efficient removals system.

David Winnick: When the then shadow Home Secretary, now the shadow Chancellor, gave evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs a few months ago, his party's solution was to put all the applicants on an island, from which their claims would be processed. Does that remain the policy of the Conservative party?

Humfrey Malins: I will tell the hon. Gentleman what our policy is, and I am glad to have the opportunity to do so. We believe that the current system is in many ways discredited and that the Home Secretary has real difficulties getting it to work properly. We doubt whether he will ever be able to do so, although we wish him well in that pursuit. We believe that the appropriate course of action is to scrap the current system entirely, to accept—[Interruption.] I am explaining, if the hon. Member for Walsall, North will listen, that we should accept a quota of refugees, designated and agreed between us and the UNHCR every year, so that we know when they arrive that their arrival has been agreed, and they are to be welcomed.
	Under that quota system, if anyone else sought to claim asylum on these shores, they would be removed to a safe offshore haven. I am using my words carefully here: they should be removed to a safe offshore haven—forget the island—where their cases would be decided. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) to barrack, but there is a great deal of sense in deciding asylum applications offshore if possible, because we would be able to avoid the problems that the Home Secretary is now facing, which he cannot solve.
	We want to work towards a combination between a quota system and offshore decision making. We do not want a system like the one that the Government preside over, which is so discredited throughout the country.

Keith Vaz: rose—

Douglas Hogg: rose—

Humfrey Malins: I shall give way to my right hon. and learned Friend first.

Douglas Hogg: May I press my hon. Friend a little on the policy that he is enunciating? If we are to delegate to the UNHCR the role of determining who is an asylum seeker, is not one of the consequences that if somebody comes to this country unlawfully we should simply refuse to entertain an application from that person, but rather say that he or she should make an application within the UNHCR procedure?

Humfrey Malins: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend—or at least, I think I am. We all want to avoid the situation in which people travel to this country, at great risk of their lives and under the cosh of the gangs, in order to make their claim, so there is much to be said for the proposal that every year we take a quota of refugees who are officially recognised by ourselves in conjunction with the UNHCR. There is also a great deal to be said for moving as rapidly as possible to an offshore processing system, which would be a much more efficient way of handling matters. [Interruption.] Before Government Members scoff, let me ask them this: in the seventh year of this Labour Government, is not their record one of abject failure on all fronts, and do not the British people regard the system that they are currently operating as chaotic and in a complete shambles?

Keith Vaz: rose—

Lynne Jones: rose—

Humfrey Malins: I shall give way to the hon. Lady, and then to the hon. Gentleman.

Lynne Jones: Would the accommodation provided in those offshore havens be of a large institutional nature, or would there be small units, as advocated by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry)?

Humfrey Malins: The hon. Lady is trying to tweak me on this subject, but I shall give her a frank answer. We do not know the answer to that question yet. Let us just occasionally be frank in this House, and say that we are not sure—

David Blunkett: rose—

Humfrey Malins: I shall give way in a moment. I shall just finish my sentence and say to the hon. Lady that there would be centres where—

Stephen Pound: Neither offshore nor sure.

Humfrey Malins: That is a good line. I shall remember that. Let me just tell the hon. Lady that at those offshore bases and centres there would be a proper judicial system, with legal advice and the fullest possible help given. Part of the purpose of that policy is that if we send a message throughout the world—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Lady will take this on board. I am saying that if we send a message—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should listen to the hon. Gentleman's response to the question.

Humfrey Malins: If we send a message that we in this country offer a genuine welcome to the needy who have been identified as such, and a message to those who want to use the asylum system as a means of getting here, that they cannot, because they will be removed to have their claims decided offshore, we shall have fewer applicants.

David Blunkett: I am almost sorry to ask the hon. Gentleman this question, because I imagine that flu is rapidly developing. A propos the accommodation centres, will he tell us whether the offshore facility per se would have to be in an urban rather than a rural area, particularly given the Conservative party's clear policy on those matters?

Humfrey Malins: The Home Secretary gets a reasonable laugh for that, but not the greatest that we have heard in the House. Let me tell him frankly that we have to identify methods—we are currently working on this—by which we can move to an offshore processing centre. I say that in the certain knowledge that if our policy can be formulated and put into practice, there will be far fewer abusive applications for asylum in this country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Humfrey Malins: I want to make some progress and I have already given way several times. However, I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham).

John Denham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is dealing with the problem with his characteristic good humour, but does he not recognise the dangers in his approach? Many of our constituents say that there must be some simple solution, like sticking all asylum seekers on a boat somewhere or shoving them off to an island. However, it is extremely dangerous to encourage the idea that there is a simplistic solution that can wish the problem away. Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that Conservative Members need either to produce a credible policy or to shut up about it? The idea that there is some simple solution is highly dangerous.

Humfrey Malins: I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for all that he has done in home affairs and for what he is doing now. Let me say, quite frankly, that there are no easy answers to any of these problems. However, I also say, just as frankly and with all the force that I can muster, that the movement towards having a recognised quota of refugees, identified by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and ourselves, coupled with offshore processing of those seeking admission to this country, is the right way forward. That is my and my party's view and that is what we shall do.

Douglas Hogg: I am sorry to press my hon. Friend on the point, but I wonder whether he may be unduly complicating our position. I can understand the point of having a quota system based on the UNHCR—it may require changing our ratification of the convention—but why the need to have a secondary ability for people to come in and then make an application from some secure centre? Surely it would be best to have one way in—through the UNHCR—and then entertain no applications that do not fall under that one process.

Humfrey Malins: My right hon. and learned Friend makes his point in his own way, but there will be people outside the quota system who seek to claim asylum in this country, and my message to them today is that we will remove them to a safe offshore centre where their applications will be processed. That will bring more order into a system that is utterly discredited.

Keith Vaz: rose—

Humfrey Malins: No, I want to make some progress. I have given way on every occasion so far and I shall not do so any more.
	Some of the Bill's proposals are to be welcomed. Anything that can be done humanely to improve the removals system will be welcomed on the Opposition Benches and throughout the country. We offer a welcome to the extension of powers of arrest, entry and search for immigration officers. We also offer a limited welcome to the proposal to criminalise those who wilfully destroy their passports or immigration documents with the purpose of pursuing unmeritorious claims, which is a pernicious practice. We welcome provisions to tag electronically those subject to immigration control, provided that such measures work in practice.
	One of the Government's greatest failures hitherto has been their inability to keep in touch with asylum seekers in the community, and not to require sufficient reporting at regular intervals. A classic example is the Oakington centre. That fast-track procedure, which incidentally costs the taxpayer £1,600 a week for each person in detention, works quickly, humanely and efficiently. But at the end of the process, it utterly fails. Why? Because applicants are released into the community, and many are never seen again.
	We also welcome measures that seek to make the appeals process more efficient, provided that justice is not lost in the process. However, we have concerns, which are shared by not only expert organisations outside the House that work in the field of asylum law, but many of the Home Secretary's own Back Benchers.
	In respect of making it a criminal offence, punishable by two years imprisonment, to present oneself to an immigration officer without a valid immigration document, have the Government considered what effect implementation might have on the prison population in this country?

Robert Marshall-Andrews: The hon. Gentleman knows that clause 10 removes any judicial review or oversight from the tribunals. The only review will be by the tribunal itself, which is not a review. For the first time since the Star Chamber, we are creating a body that has powers over people's lives that are not reviewed by the courts. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with that? Knowing him as a libertarian, I am sure that his immediate answer will be no. If so, why are the Tories not voting against the Bill, and why are they leaving it to Labour Members to test it?

Humfrey Malins: Let me deal with the point of principle first. Am I in favour of that clause? The answer is that I am not, and I do not believe that any fair-minded person would want it to remain unamended.
	Returning to the offence under clause 2, there is one category of people who must be dealt with: those who tear up their immigration documents on a flight or on arrival at an airport wilfully and with intent to evade the system. Would it not be more effective either to require carriers to take copies of traveller's documentation, or to take such documents from them when they board the aeroplane and give them back at immigration control?
	Can we not distinguish that group of people—those who wilfully destroy their documents before arrival—from the other group who flee persecution, crossing the continent, often under the influence of criminal gangs? Thousands of those people have never had travel or immigration documents, or passports. Such people would be guilty and could go to prison for up to two years. We are potentially criminalising people who have to flee in a hurry and are told to destroy documents by the smugglers, people who never had them in the first place, and people who have them collected by the smugglers before they reach immigration control. A huge percentage of genuine asylum seekers have no documentation whatever, so there is real concern that the provision might catch and hurt innocent and vulnerable people, rather than merely catching those trying to defeat the system.
	How many such asylum seekers have dependent children with them? What would be the effect on those children if the asylum seeker, on being charged, were remanded in custody and, on conviction, placed in prison for up to two years? What if their parents were fined thousands of pounds that they clearly could not pay? If they came before the courts as defaulters and had to go to prison, what would happen? What sort of system is that for the genuine asylum seeker?

Lynne Jones: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments. The Government have said—I finally saw the consultation document in the Library—that few people would choose to go to prison rather than return home. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that people who are prepared to go to prison for two years are likely to have established that they did have a well-founded fear of persecution?

Humfrey Malins: The genuine asylum seeker arriving here, fleeing persecution, torture and possible death, would, if offered a choice between going back or spending two years in a British prison, opt for prison every time. However, the clause is potentially unfair, unless it is amended in Committee to make sure that we punish only those who are deserving of the punishment—in my view, those who wilfully tear up their documents on the aeroplane or when they reach our airports, not those who flee in haste across the continent.

Tony McWalter: Is the hon. Gentleman confused about the idea that it might be deemed an offence not to have documents? As far as I can see, the Bill certainly does not suggest that it is an offence for someone not to have documents, as opposed to someone wilfully refusing to co-operate with the authorities in seeking to establish his or her identity. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that point on board.

Humfrey Malins: The clause reads as follows:
	"A person commits an offence if when he is first interviewed by an immigration after arrival . . . he does not have with him an immigration document which . . . is in force".
	That is the offence. The broad nature of that allegation means that we might send tens of thousands of innocent people to prison, so the clause will need to be carefully examined in Committee.
	Clause 7 deals with withdrawal of support. Until now, asylum seekers with dependent children have received support until they fail to comply with a removal direction. The issuing of a removal direction is an administrative act signifying the Government's immediate readiness to remove the failed asylum seeker—it comes right at the end of the process. Now, it is proposed to stop benefits much earlier. That may encourage more failed asylum seekers to take advantage of an opportunity to leave the UK; it may send a signal that those who attempt to play the system cannot expect to succeed; but it may also drive failed asylum seekers underground and split up families, as well as make removal more difficult.
	The measure may hit many people who have nowhere to go—people on whom the Government would hesitate to serve a removal direction because of the hardship involved in removing them to their country of origin. Zimbabwe is a case in point—a prime example. Removals to Zimbabwe have been suspended for a long time, so what happens to the failed asylum seeker whom the Government cannot and will not remove to Zimbabwe? Does such a person receive the notice stopping all their benefits or not? There are many people whom the Government would hesitate to remove because of the practical difficulties in getting the country of origin to receive them back—countries such as China, Moldova, Zimbabwe and the Congo all have their own particular difficulties. What would the Government do about failed asylum seekers whom, in the normal course of events, they would not remove to those countries? Will the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration set out precisely what is to happen to such people? As the Bill stands, they could be refused any support, which might be grossly unfair.
	There is one aspect of the changes that the Conservative party will never tolerate. Last month, the Government briefed the press that the children of asylum seekers would be taken away from them to make them leave Britain. It was a despicable and disgraceful idea, and the British people have already expressed their disgust, yet despite the opportunities given to him on many occasions in the House by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the Prime Minister has refused to rebut his officials' briefings. The Home Secretary has distanced himself from the threat and there is no mention of it in the Bill. If the Home Secretary can guarantee that the removal of children into care will not be used as an explicit threat to asylum seekers, he will have our support; but if any amendment is made to the Bill to the effect that asylum seekers' children will be taken into care simply to persuade their parents to go home, we will have none of it and we will oppose it in the strongest possible terms.

Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman discredits himself with that accusation, which the Home Secretary has refuted on many occasions, including by writing to the newspaper concerned. The newspaper repeated that story, even after we had disavowed its version of clause 7. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that that story was in no way the result of briefing by either Ministers or officials?

Humfrey Malins: I have to say to the Minister that the briefing began somewhere—the press were briefed to that effect by someone in the Government. All I ask the Minister to do is to give us the undertaking I described.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Humfrey Malins: I want to make a little progress before giving way again. I have given way almost every time I have been asked.
	We have always said that a streamlined, fast and efficient appeals system is important. Like the Home Secretary, we deplore attempts by those who seek asylum to play the system for all it is worth and to mount a succession of unmeritorious appeals, so in principle we understand and accept the desire to unify the appeals system. However, I greatly regret the proposal in the Bill to abolish all existing rights of appeal and review to the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. One of the strengths of the present system is that the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords have decided a large number of asylum cases and given clear and binding precedents on a number of vital matters. I would be more than sorry to see that go.
	It is a fact that the stakes are often highest for the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society. A mistake could send asylum seekers back to a country where torture and execution await them, and we must be absolutely sure of ourselves before introducing the measure. As the Bill stands, the obvious question to ask is how an erroneous decision by the new tribunal can be corrected if there is no right to apply to the Court of Appeal for a binding decision. The Bill offers only one possibility: for the tribunal to review its own decision on the basis of written representations. That provision is surely too restrictive, in effect, making the tribunal a judge of its own cause. Remember also that under the Bill as it stands, there is no judicial scrutiny of a decision by an immigration officer to remove someone. I share the concerns expressed by many hon. Members, not only Conservatives but Labour Members, most eloquently the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews).

Iain Coleman: I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman's most recent observations, but may I take him back to his comments about destitute children and the leader of the Conservative party? I advise the hon. Gentleman that the policy of a large number of Conservative-controlled local authorities in the event of a family being found to be intentionally homeless—perhaps because they have got into rent arrears or refused an offer of accommodation— is to take away the children of that family and put them into care against their parents' will? Does he regard that as despicable and barbaric, and if not, why not?

Humfrey Malins: As the hon. Gentleman was speaking, an hon. Friend was whispering something into my ear, so although I picked up most of what he said and will give the best answer I can, if I do not completely answer his point, let us talk about it afterwards. In principle, I am not generally in favour of taking children into care. I believe that the splitting up of families with the children being taken into care is potentially extremely damaging to the children, to the family unit and to the long-term prospects of those young people.

Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Humfrey Malins: Let me make some progress.
	Can we not agree that the highest courts in this land should, when appropriate, be available to all our people, regardless of background? We will have to examine the clause closely in Committee. We will also look closely at the provision for charging immigration applicants more than the cost of processing their applications. That has caused much concern in educational establishments, and needs to be considered with care.
	We can therefore give the Bill qualified support, subject to proper scrutiny and amendment in Committee and the other place. It is greatly to be hoped that it will do much to remove the incentive to remain in Britain after an application has been refused on appeal, and that it will end the dire situation whereby some failed asylum seekers can cynically play the appeals system. However, it troubles me that the Government are seeking to exclude the judges.
	It is something of an irony that the Prime Minister, when he was Leader of the Opposition, championed the right of individuals to have access to the highest courts in the land, yet now talks to his party conference about the problems that the Government face from what he describes as "judicial interference". When the Government accuse the judiciary of interfering, it is time to be very concerned about our ancient liberties.
	I end with this advice to the Government: in future, legislate less, and give much more thought to legislative proposals; consult more widely; move more slowly; and remember that legislation has never created, and will never create, operational efficiency. That is what is wrong with our current system.
	Finally, in view of what so many of us feel about some of the Bill's illiberal aspects, the Government should never lose sight of the principle that although our system must work, it almost certainly must remain a beacon of humanity and decency to the rest of the civilised world.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I remind the House that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 12-minute limit on Back-Bench Members' speeches.

Hilton Dawson: I beg to move,
	That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill because it contains provision that would make children destitute.
	I am extraordinarily grateful to Mr. Speaker for selecting this reasoned amendment. I have spent most of the morning being warned by vastly more experienced colleagues that that would not happen. That it has is a mark of Mr. Speaker's commitment to the rights of Back-Bench Members. It is also, I hope, an indication of the seriousness of this subject. I regard it as a matter of fundamental principle and conscience. Other hon. Members will deal with the merits or demerits of many more of the Bill's 28 clauses than I shall. I intend to concentrate solely on clause 7.
	Clause 7 is so wrong in what it intends to do that it should be opposed by every hon. Member from every party in this House. The presence of the clause in the Bill demeans all of us here.
	It is an indication of the seriousness of this matter that all hon. Members will have received a briefing from the British Association of Social Workers. I spent 25 years as a social worker, but I never joined the association as I did not think that it reflected the profession's radicalism. It is extraordinary, and entirely to be commended, that the association should say that it cannot overstate its opposition to receiving children into care on the ground of parental poverty, which it regards as a breach of professional ethics. The association briefing states:
	"We expect our members to strongly resist the implementation of this clause."
	It is a matter of enormous regret that the Bill has been produced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and that it has the support of my hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration. Both are exceptionally fine people, whom I hold in the highest respect and regard. They have an enormously difficult task, and I support them in many aspects of the job that they try to do. However, they are wrong in what they propose this afternoon. They are taking us a step far too far.
	It seems extraordinary that I have to say this to a Labour Government, but in no circumstances whatever should the basic means of sustenance be removed from children. That is true whatever their parents have done, whoever they are, wherever they come from, and regardless of the merits of the case presented by any adults involved. All hon. Members should reflect that, if they vote for a Bill that contains clause 7, they will be voting for a measure that will mean that children in this country will go hungry. That will be their individual responsibility, not the responsibility of Whips. They will be taking direct responsibility for children becoming homeless. They will be taking direct responsibility for children being at risk of physical and sexual abuse, and they will be taking direct responsibility for children needing to be looked after by their local authorities and separated from their parents simply because those parents are destitute.

Tony McWalter: My hon. Friend knows that I greatly respect his tremendous work on behalf of children. Will he reflect on the fact that families are rapped out of their beds at 5 o'clock in the morning and wrenched out to the airport by force at present—children must also go through that traumatic experience? The Bill is an attempt to put in place a system of co-operation that would be gentler and better supported, which should be better for children all round.

Hilton Dawson: I am sorry, but I entirely reject my hon. Friend's view. I entirely support ways of working with families and helping them to deal with situations in which they find themselves, but we do not help families by taking away their basic means of sustenance and impoverishing them. I have gone to bed in nice hotels in Romania, Angola, Burundi and Kenya knowing that destitute children were right outside the building, but that has never happened here. My hon. Friends might like to protest that such things will never happen and that families with no right to remain in this country who are faced with the prospect of destitution will take their leave earlier and more quickly. They may also argue that local authorities will intervene, after which people will be removed virtually immediately in any case. I hope that they are right—they may well be right for several cases.

Beverley Hughes: I have told my hon. Friend that I know of and respect his great concern for children. However, it might be worth while for him to set out where he thinks that parental responsibility lies in such circumstances. There is an important difference between the families about which he is talking, and indigenous families and those with the right to remain. Those families will have the opportunity to get an assisted package to help them back home to their country and assistance with resettling, if necessary, so they will consequently have the means of avoiding the possible consequences of support being taken away from them.

Hilton Dawson: I shall try to respond to my hon. Friend's point in part later in my speech. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that neither the Home Office nor all its procedures will be infallible, so people who are forced to go home might well be pushed back to a life of torture and oppression in the countries from which they came. We need to draw a clear distinction when comparing children in such circumstances with children from our country. The welfare needs of children from our country are met by keeping the family together and offering all sorts of support, but they are occasionally removed from their families to address their protection needs. Several hon. Members have conflated those issues already.
	When some families are faced with the implications of clause 7, whatever the merits of their case, they will ask local authorities to look after their children because they are unable to do that. They may do that at an earlier stage than my hon. Friends would like to believe. The nature of section 20 of the Children Act 1989 has already been misunderstood this afternoon. Children cannot be taken into care under the provision, because the arrangement is entirely voluntary. If parents go to local authorities because they have no money to look after their children, given that the authorities will not be able to provide the families with money and the only alternative would be to try to construct a network of voluntary support, social workers will probably have to agree to accommodate children under section 20 despite the fact that that offends against the paramount principle of the Children Act and every tenet of good professional practice. Thereafter those parents could disappear, leaving their children as alone as any unaccompanied asylum-seeking child who had made their own way to the UK. Such children would be left in the care system and would need to be looked after until they were grown up.
	Those children could be the lucky ones, however. I have great faith that the overwhelmingly decent people of this country would rally round to help families made destitute by clause 7. The horrible, ridiculous nonsense peddled by the likes of the Daily Mail and The Sun does a gross disservice to the people of this country. Churches, mosques, synagogues, temples, voluntary organisations, friends, families and many individuals will do all that they can to offer food, clothing and shelter. They may reduce the number of people who will need to beg, to steal and to camp out on our streets, but people will still be on the streets as a consequence of the clause.
	The criminals and paedophiles will also spot new prey. Only last month, we passed the fine legislation that is the Sexual Offences Act 2003, but how many families desperate to stay in this country will be impelled back into the arms of traffickers or forced into the arms of thieves and pimps, into the homes of men who will have an uncommon hold over people who will feel the full weight of that obligation? In such circumstances, social workers may have to intervene with compulsory powers.
	Over the past few days, we have heard much, rightly, about the awful human difficulties of compulsorily removing families from this country under our immigration laws. My right hon. and hon. Friends might also like to contemplate the awful human difficulties of removing children from their families under emergency protection orders. That can be a very harrowing experience indeed.
	The proposed legislation will make some families—some children—disappear from view and they will be in colossal danger. As I wrote that sentence I thought, "My God, I hope I'm wrong." We should not dream of putting the legislation, or families, to the test. What is proposed in clause 7 is wrong. It undermines all the work that the Government are rightly doing to emphasise the principle that every child matters. Under clause 7, some children do not matter. The clause breaches the Children Act 1989; it breaches articles 3 and 9 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child; and goodness knows how the Home Secretary can believe that it complies with the Human Rights Act 1998. The Human Rights Act is not worth having if these provisions comply with it.
	The Bill invites us to attempt to persuade adults to do something because if they do not we will harm their children and break up their families. That is immoral.

Julie Morgan: Is my hon. Friend aware that the office of the Children's Commissioner for Wales has expressed grave concerns about the legislation? Does he agree that when there is a children's commissioner for England that person may express similar concerns?

Hilton Dawson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. The children's commissioner for England would face the prospect of such legislation with coruscating anger and would take the Government fully to task for even contemplating it. We should not allow this country to reach that position.
	Voting against Second Reading is a moral imperative for Members on both sides of the House. We have heard utter confusion from the Conservative Front Bench and I appeal to Conservative Back Benchers, over the heads of their Front Benchers and the crocodile tears of their leader, to vote with their consciences this evening.
	The Whips should have no sway over the issue. I am confident that even they might examine their consciences in this case—[Hon. Members: "No, never."] I remain confident.
	I sincerely urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reconsider clause 7, to think again and to decide not to take our precious, tolerant, democratic society, which is based on fundamental human rights, down a wicked road. ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
	Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Act 2003.

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mark Oaten: I start by sharing a sentiment with the Home Secretary on the outcome of the Soham murder trial. I should add that if it does emerge in the next day or two that there were some serious record-keeping errors in the past, that will be of serious concern to parents throughout the country. After all, what is the point in having such measures in place if there has been a failure? I hope that the Home Secretary will come to the House as soon as possible to explain what will be done to examine the issues thoroughly.
	If somebody had told me six years ago, when I entered Parliament, that as a Liberal Democrat I would be arguing against an immigration Bill that used children as a tool to try to remove asylum seekers, and which took away levels of natural justice, and then told me that it would be a Labour Government to whom I would be raising objections, I would not have believed that possible. However, since the Labour Government came to office, they seem persistently to want to battle it out in the right-wing press to try to outbid the Conservatives in their period of office.
	If the Home Secretary, as he said, wants to try in the next few months to have some more positive leaders in The Guardian, my advice to him is that he may have to do away with some positive leaders in the Daily Mail if he is to achieve such an outcome.
	I shall run through some of the measures in the Bill. Before doing so, I will place my remarks in the context of why we are having the debate in the first place. There have been discussions about the degree of the problem in relation to asylum seekers. A couple of weeks ago, the Government announced that by their own measurements, there had been a reduction in the number of asylum seekers coming into the country. It strikes me as slightly odd that against that backdrop of a clear Government target met, they want to introduce another wave of measures, I assume to try to have a further cut in place. When the Minister replies, it may be useful for him to explain whether an assessment has been made to ascertain what reduction in the number of individuals seeking to come to the UK the Government want.
	Is there to be another target similar to the one that the Prime Minister announced a year ago? If not, have the Government made assessments of the impact of these changes? It strikes me that the sole purpose of the changes must be to try to reduce the number of asylum seekers entering the country. It would be helpful all round to know what the target is, or whether there is a target.
	I hope that the Government will accept that one of the reasons why we are seeing a reduction in the numbers is that there has been a change, with the expansion of the European Union, which will be embedded in 2004. Some of the measures that the Government will put in place with the enactment of the Bill may not be needed if the pattern that seems to be emerging over the last year or so continues.
	There are three or four critical clauses and I shall raise some concerns and put my points to the Minister. First, there is clause 10, which introduces a fundamental issue. There is much talk about children and benefits, but for me the big principle rests with the changes that the Government plan to the appeal system that currently operates. It seems that the Government, despite the Home Secretary's assurances that there will still be some peculiar route to a higher court, are doing away with a level of appeal. Not only that, they are doing away with the principle of being able to go to a higher court for some form of judicial review.
	Tellingly, the Law Society has said:
	"The general principle of English law is that the High Court exercises a supervisory jurisdiction through judicial review, over administrative decisions and the work of tribunals, in order to ensure there is a remedy where those bodies make errors of law or reach decisions in a way that is grossly unfair."
	It added:
	"It is essential that asylum appeals which deal with life or death issues are subject to that full and proper judicial scrutiny."
	I cannot understand why the Government want to take away that protection and break an established principle that we have in law.
	It is important to have the ability to refer on to a higher court. We have often seen in the past that testing out some laws through judicial review has resulted in better decisions. It has changed the practice. It has changed the way in which decisions were made in the first place. We will lose all that now.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Are the two things not linked? Is not clause 7 made infinitely more iniquitous because of the problems introduced by clause 10, which make it infinitely more likely that deserving cases will be subject to the provisions in clause 7?

Mark Oaten: All the clauses are connected in many ways, and the implications of rights being taken away in one clause by changes introduced by other clauses are very dangerous indeed. I would include in that something that is not in the Bill but which is being discussed elsewhere—the plans to change legal aid. If the Government are moving towards a more streamlined approach and want to remove certain levels of appeal, it is critical that decent decisions be made. If such decisions are to be made, decent legal aid must be in place. The Government proposals to remove legal aid should be put on hold until we have seen how the changes in the Bill bed down.

Jeremy Corbyn: I agree, particularly with the hon. Gentleman's last point. Is he aware that, especially in inner London, large numbers of solicitors' firms are closing down because they simply cannot afford to represent immigration and asylum cases? Voluntary sector law centres are overwhelmed by cases, so people can only go to places where they are prey to unscrupulous, incompetent advisers who often mess up a case, resulting in a grave injustice at a later stage.

Mark Oaten: That is an extremely valid point. The consequences of the proposed changes in legal aid are serious, as we could end up with individuals who have not got the necessary skills, particularly given the change in the structures suggested by the Government.
	The Government are breaking a fundamental principle, and it is extraordinary that they should do so, as there are very few areas indeed where they have removed the ability to go on to a second appeal and then a higher court. In fact, the only other area in which they have made such changes involves issues of national security. The affected bodies are the investigatory powers tribunal, the Special Immigration Appeals Tribunal, and the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission. I do not see how the issue of dealing with asylum seekers falls into that category of national security. Having already broken one principle, the Government should not break the principle of referral to a higher court of genuine asylum cases. The plans to take away the option of another tribunal looking at a case are of concern, let alone the issue of being able to go to the High Court. The limitation of having only a written review, which cannot be discussed unless technical issues are raised, narrows very unfairly indeed a tribunal's ability to review its own decision.
	It is critical to establish the number of individuals who are going through the process at the moment. When we debated the Queen's Speech a couple of weeks ago, I tried to establish with the Home Secretary how many people were involved. There was general agreement that in the first stage of appeal 20 per cent. of cases were successful. In the second stage of appeal, I argued that 20 per cent. of people were successful, but the Home Secretary said that it was more likely to be 3 per cent. It is important to get that figure right. A Library briefing tries to clear the issue up:
	"The Home Secretary has consistently referred to 3 per cent. of appeals to the IAT being successful but this is not apparent from the published statistics".
	It appears that there is genuine confusion about the number of individuals who are currently successful on the second appeal. In written answers, the Home Office has not been able to tell me what proportion of immigration appeal tribunal appeals are initiated by the Home Office, and it cannot tell me what proportion of Home Office appeals are successful compared with appeals lodged by individuals. Without those statistics, it will be difficult for us to debate the issue in Committee, as it is critical to know how many individuals will be affected by the removal of the second tier of appeal. I hope that in the time available we can try to get more detailed figures.
	Far too many cases are being dealt with incorrectly at the first stage of appeal. The 20 per cent. figure suggests that there are serious problems with the way in which the process is currently conducted. The situation seems to have got worse in the past five years, and in particular country cases, 39 per cent. of appeals by Somalis and 38 per cent. of appeals by Sudanese have been successful. Something is clearly going badly wrong in the system if that proportion of decisions is proven to have been incorrect.

Vera Baird: The situation is even worse than the hon. Gentleman sets out. The 22 per cent. average failure rate allows for the abusive applications that we have heard a good deal about. Many applications are made that should not be made and do not have much of a leg to stand on. They, of course, weight the average. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is prepared to take it from me, but there are some skilful asylum practitioners who have a success rate on appeal of 90 to 95 per cent. That is what we are really talking about.

Mark Oaten: The hon. and learned Lady's reputation is such that I am prepared to take it from her. That demonstrates the need to establish the figures clearly before Committee stage; otherwise we will be discussing these issues in a vacuum.
	All hon. Members agree that we must speed up the process by getting it right in the first place, not by cutting out tiers of natural justice. That means, as we have heard, better training and—we have not heard this—better use of interpreters during the early process. There could be difficulties over language and understanding what is being said at that stage. Better and faster information is needed on applicants' countries. The Home Secretary said that the Government had established the advisory panel to help produce that information.
	I have concerns, first, that the information is still not as up to date as it could be about possibly fast-moving events in those countries, and secondly, that the information and all the data collected with it are not getting through to the individuals down on the desk who take the initial decisions. We need to make better information available faster. Finally, the proposals to do away with legal aid will make it extremely difficult to try to steer an individual's case through a changing legal process.
	I turn to clause 7 and the controversial issue of the withdrawal of benefits. As I said, this is the issue that has hit the headlines. I know that the Minister is irritated by it, and that she will claim that no briefings by the Government to the press have taken place. Nevertheless, I am left with an impression—I do not know where it came from—that the issue of children and asylum was put in the press from somewhere. However that happened, it is extremely regrettable that the subject of children has been raised in that way, as part—

Beverley Hughes: For the record, let me clarify, in addition to my earlier comments on the issue, that the Government publicised their intention to legislate in precisely this way on 24 October, when I announced the ILR—indefinite leave to remain—exercise involving 15,000 families. We also announced these measures. On 27 October, in our first consultation document, we included the details of what is in the Bill. The Bill says nothing at all about taking children into care. That is not the measure that we are debating.

Mark Oaten: Whether the announcement was made three months ago or three weeks ago, it is incorrect and wrong. It is clearly the intention of the Home Office to remove the benefits of children and families. That will lead to hardship and will make it necessary for social services to make judgments on those children. On the "Today" programme yesterday morning, the Minister said that she did not expect any children to be taken into care because parents would comply if threatened in that way. Does she stand by the view that she does not envisage children being taken into care because people will comply? I believe that is the Minister's view—that children will not be taken into care. [Interruption.] I am happy to give way.

Beverley Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to intervene to answer that question, rather than doing so from a sedentary position, I am happy to do so. I do not believe that the vast majority of parents who are asylum seekers, any more than the vast majority of any of us as parents or any other group of parents, will want to be separated from their children when they have an alternative remedy, which is to go home, with assistance. That is my position.

Mark Oaten: My instincts as a parent are much the same as the Minister's, but it is the Opposition's role to ensure that we have good legislation, and that is not achieved by putting in place a threat that one hopes will work and that one therefore does not expect to have to use. If that logic applied, there would be fewer people in prison. We have laws, we hope that they will act as a deterrent, but human nature is such that people take different views from those that the Minister or I might take. The Government put forward a similar argument for section 55 of the 2002 Act. The logic then was that individuals would not make late claims because the possibility of losing their benefits would be a deterrent. In fact, the evidence is that people have been prepared to lose their benefits.

Jenny Tonge: Does my hon. Friend agree that a really good parent who had escaped terrible persecution in their country of origin would be quite likely to prefer to leave their children in care than have to take them back to the country where they knew that they would seriously damaged?

Mark Oaten: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee said:
	"Faced with that choice, families might disappear and leave their children in care, thinking that may be the better option, because at least the children would get to stay in Britain and perhaps the adults would get to stay here, albeit working illegally".

Diane Abbott: The Minister says that she believes that the majority of parents, faced with having their children taken into care, will comply with directions and return home. But how big will be the minority of parents who do not comply? Are we talking about a dozen, a couple of dozen, a hundred? Perhaps when she winds up, the Minister will tell the House how big the minority of children will be who will end up in care as a consequence of the Bill.

Mark Oaten: I shall leave the Minister to respond to that well made point when she winds up.

Glenda Jackson: I applaud the Minister's natural sense of how she would behave in a situation, but would not a logical conclusion of that be that every child who arrives here as an unaccompanied minor seeking refuge is an orphan? I know that many of them are, but not all of them are.

Mark Oaten: Again, that is an extremely good point, which is one of those issues that, when we have line-by-line analysis in Committee, we shall want to probe.
	I should like an assurance from the Minister that, at the point at which the decision is taken to withdraw benefit, someone will ensure that a meeting takes place with the local social services department to explain the consequences of losing the benefit and what will happen next. If the benefit is simply withdrawn, and the other agencies are not informed, over a period of months some form of hardship could develop of which none of the other agencies would be aware. Whatever our views about the clause, we would not want such a situation to emerge. It is important that individual authorities should be notified.
	For tackling the problem of removals, Liberal Democrats do not support the idea of an island; rather, there should be a greater use of existing powers. The situation has been allowed to go on for far too long, and the long delays make an eventual removal harder. I, and the Home Affairs Committee, have had examples of individuals who had reached their final stage, but five years on nothing had happened. By that point, individuals have become embedded in the community and it is difficult to remove them, so there needs to be much more effective use of existing powers. I accept the Home Secretary's argument that one barrier to removal is re-documentation, but I thought that clause 14 tackled that; so if that is effective, we do not need powers to withdraw benefit, nor the threat to take children into care.
	Initially, I had some sympathy with the view that we should take a tough stance on individuals who have clearly destroyed their documents. It is important that those who give genuine asylum seekers a bad name should be highlighted in the way proposed. I understand the Government's desire to send a strong message to the organisers of gangs who encourage individuals to do that. However, these clauses will need very careful examination if we are to ensure that genuine cases are not criminalised. At the moment, the onus is on an individual who arrives without documentation to make the case for why they have not got it. That is the wrong way round. I believe in the assumption of innocence, which means that we should assume that they have a genuine reason for not having it.
	Because a punishment will be attached to the non-possession of documents, the Crown Prosecution Service is being drawn into the process. That gives rise to the danger of a twin-track process whereby somebody who arrives here without documentation is subject both to the normal immigration process assessing their case and to a CPS process leading towards possible conviction. Since the two processes will presumably consider the same information, it would be unnecessarily complicated for an individual to have to steer their way through that twin-track process. Furthermore, the situation could arise whereby although it had been decided that they were genuine and could be allowed into this country, the CPS had to continue to pursue the issue of their not having documentation. It would be crazy to have the two processes running at the same time. Will the Minister clarify that?
	Does the Minister accept that there are many genuine reasons why individuals might come into this country without documentation? In some countries, such as the Republic of the Congo and Somalia, it is difficult to obtain such documentation in the first place. Alternatively, if someone is fleeing a country because something has suddenly flared up, the last thing on their mind will be to go back home to try to get their passport—indeed, their house may have been burned down, so trying to get that documentation could prove very difficult.

Jeremy Corbyn: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Geneva convention requires signatory states not to discriminate against individuals because of their lack of documentation or the method by which they arrive?

Mark Oaten: Indeed—the UK signed up to that convention in 1951, and it would be interesting to hear from the Minister how the Government's proposals fall within its legality.
	Another of my concerns about arrival without documentation relates to the message that the Government want to send back to the gangmasters and traffickers. I can understand their desire to send that message, but I have not yet heard them explain how it will physically be achieved. Those individuals would need to have a fairly sophisticated understanding of UK asylum law in order to interpret what the Government are planning. Let us also remember that traffickers often place the people they want to come into this country in considerable danger or make threats against their families. That pressure may mean that it would be reasonable for them to argue that they had come into this country without documentation because they were told to destroy it by a gang leader.
	We will need to examine these clauses carefully to ensure that nobody who comes here without documentation for genuine reasons ends up in prison. I would also say to the Home Secretary that adding another category of individuals to those who are imprisoned is, first, unacceptable given the number of people who are already in prison and, secondly, unrealistic in financial terms, because the costs involved in keeping somebody in prison would wipe out some of the potential savings. We are in danger of criminalising innocent individuals instead of finding a way of punishing the gangmasters and traffickers who have brought them into this country.
	The Leader of the Opposition made a great cause of the issue of children and said that the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister should be ashamed. In this sense, he is right: the Government should be ashamed that they have put themselves in a position whereby they can take such strong criticism from a former right-wing Home Secretary. On the grounds of natural justice, on the way in which children are being used as a political tool, and on the principle of this country remaining a safe haven, Liberal Democrats will vote for the amendment and against the Bill.

DEFERRED DIVISION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I now have to announce the result of a Division deferred from a previous day.
	On the motion on extradition, the Ayes were 243 and the Noes were 43, so the motion was agreed to.
	[The Division Lists are published at the end of today's debates.]

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

John Denham: The Select Committee on Home Affairs reported yesterday, and I hope that the report will be of value to the House in the debate today and also in scrutiny in Committee. I should particularly like to thank the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, who, as part of the asylum applications inquiry, has appeared before the Committee on some six occasions in the last calendar year. I wish all Ministers were so happy to give evidence. We shall be publishing a fuller report on the asylum process in the new year, but we picked out for the current report the elements that applied to the Bill.
	Asylum is clearly a major issue for many of our constituents. There is real concern about abuse of the system and about the impact on many areas of the country of significant numbers of new people moving into settled communities. I think the case for being seen to take strong measures to tackle flaws in the asylum system is sound, and the recent figures suggest that the Government have had considerable success in doing that.
	I want to start with two general comments. First, we need to ensure that the public are kept properly informed about the issues. The Minister was very helpful in trying to inform the Select Committee about the overall costs of supporting families in the asylum system, but it was very unfortunate that that was done in a way that enabled the cost to be represented as a much higher income than some of our constituents enjoy, when the reality is that, on a like-for-like basis, asylum-seeking families have a standard of living that is significantly below the income support levels available to British families. It does no good for any of us if the problem is overstated in the public mind—it creates a rod for all our backs if people get the wrong impression.
	Secondly, we must recognise that failed asylum-seeking families are human beings. Of course, there are people who try the asylum system who are of outright criminal intent, and certainly there are many who wish to use the flaws in the system to remain here as long as possible, to exploit the ability to work illegally and so on. But the truth is that most are people who, although they have no valid claim to be refugees, have set out and risked a lot in the hope of a better life for themselves and their families. When the decision comes that the answer is no, they still deserve to be treated humanely by the system, and we need to bear that in mind in talking about these proposals.
	The Select Committee considered the proposals but not the Bill; we did not have time to do that. I have to say that there was too little information available at the consultation stage for the Committee or many of the respondents to respond in detail to the proposals that are now being discussed. Particularly in relation to clause 10, which will clearly be controversial, it would have been better if the full shape of the Government's proposals had formed part of the consultation document. Difficulties will arise in another place, if not here, and it would have been better to work through the issues.
	The Committee's overall assessment of the Bill is that its basic principles are right, but its implementation will be critical. There is clearly a significant problem with undocumented passengers, both in returning those who have no case for asylum to their countries and in tackling people traffickers. The Committee supported the general proposals to tackle those who deliberately destroy documents or fail to co-operate with redocumentation.
	However, we must ensure that there is real protection for those who are genuinely fleeing persecution. Most people who enter the country, particularly on airlines, depend on people-traffickers; they get their information from people-traffickers. If people are to be aware of the consequences of destroying documents, we need to ensure that they understand the position fully. There must be improved information to passengers.
	When the Minister came before the Committee, she told us that it was not the intention to use the provision against those who have no option but to travel on false documents because they come from countries where they cannot approach the embassy to ask for a visa, or even get a passport in the first place. We welcome that assurance, but I believe that it should be explicit and included in the Bill. That would provide a valuable protection.

Lynne Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Government that the reforms are urgent and that the Government were therefore justified in not carrying out due process in relation to consultation or making the appropriate details available to his Committee and other Members?

John Denham: I believe that there is a powerful case for the Government introducing this legislation in this Session of Parliament. It is unfortunate, however, that Parliament—and, more particularly, the informed organisations outside—did not have more time to comment on the details. I think that there will be problems as the Bill goes through that could have been avoided if we had had a longer consultation period, and that is a shame.
	To return to the problem of undocumented passengers, the Committee believes that not all the burden should be placed on the individual asylum seeker. We were given useful information about the use of covert surveillance and other methods of ensuring that the authorities knew which flights people had arrived on. There is scope for far more action of that kind at airports—for example, having immigration officials meeting selected flights, and so on. These cases depend heavily on the individual asylum seeker at the moment, and more could be done about the way in which the immigration and nationality directorate operates.
	We have to be realistic about the appeal system. There is undoubtedly a significant incentive in the system at the moment, in that the lengthy and cumbersome appeals procedures with their multi-layered approach enable those supporting people coming to this country to tell them that they will be able to stay for a very long time before their cases are resolved. In terms of pull factors, that is a significant issue. The Select Committee took the view that, in principle, simplifying the appeals procedure so that the process did not last as long as many hon. Member know it does now was the right thing to do. Those who say that there is nothing wrong with the current system are simply turning a blind eye to the fact that that long-drawn-out procedure is a significant pull factor.
	The Committee therefore supports, in principle, a simplified system with a single level of appeal. But—and it is a very big "but"—the problem currently lies in the quality of the initial decisions. To switch to a simplified system when so many of those decisions are wrong and when there is so much reliance on further stages of appeal will be very difficult. The statistics are not satisfactory, because the Home Office does not keep track of what happens to particular cohorts of asylum seekers, but one in five decisions are overturned at the initial decision stage, and it would appear that well over half the cases that reach the immigration appeal tribunal are overturned in one way or another—cases are either held up or referred back to an adjudicator.
	The Government must recognise that there needs to be confidence in the system. I understand that rights for asylum seekers are not a popular concept, and that tough action is. However, tough measures must be founded on sound principles and procedures. The Committee therefore concluded that initial decision making must be improved, as demonstrated by a fall in successful appeals, before the system is simplified. We are saying not that this part of the Bill should be removed, but that there should be a clear commitment about when it will be brought into effect. I regret the fact that the Government rejected this recommendation from the Committee within hours, if not minutes, of our report being published on Monday. I hope that they will listen to the tone of today's debate and look again at the issue—given that it will take time to put in place a different system of tribunals anyway—and set themselves a target to improve their record on initial decision making before the changes are made.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I do not disagree with the principle of simplifying the adjudicator and immigration appeal tribunal process. That is where the principal delays are occurring. Many people will agree with everything that my right hon. Friend has just said, including those who criticise clause 10. He will get an extra two minutes as a result of this intervention, so will he briefly address the question of the proscription of any judicial overview of this process? That is absolutely unique in our system, and, as I have said, has not existed since the Star Chamber.

John Denham: The Select Committee did not consider that issue. We were unable to do so, as the Bill had not been published when we were preparing our report. My own view is that we must avoid a situation in which such a recourse becomes as regular a part of the procedure as the IAT or judicial review. I shall go no further than to say that it is worth exploring whether that protection can be provided but in a limited set of circumstances, so that the rights to which my hon. and learned Friend referred can be protected.
	The restriction of family support is the most controversial element of the Bill. It is deeply unsatisfactory that we do not have any estimate of the number of asylum-seeking families currently in the system to whom this measure could potentially be applied. We are having a major debate with no idea whether we are talking about tens of thousands, thousands, hundreds or tens of families. It is a problem with the Home Office statistics rather than with the Minister, but none the less the Standing Committee must be given better information.
	The Select Committee came to the view, which I support, that the principle is right. It is difficult to say to our constituents that a family who have no right to be here should expect taxpayers' support ad infinitum. To go against that principle would be to make a mockery of the asylum system for families—we might as well say that once they have set foot in this country they should be allowed to stay. We are not suggesting that clause 7 be removed from the Bill. However, the House must scrutinise carefully how the Government intend to implement it.
	We accept that the aim is to achieve more voluntary returns, and we must examine how that will be done. Our Committee has said in the past that much needs to be done to improve the return and removal system—not necessarily with more snatch squads or dawn raids. We should ensure that the whole system is reformed, so that it is understood by all parties that a failed claim will lead to swift action to effect removal. I hope that the Committee will say more about that in the new year. My view is that everyone should be prepared before they receive the decision, so that it is perfectly clear that if it is yes, this is what will happen to them, and if it is no, that is what will happen to them. I worry that we are still starting the process when the appeal letter arrives, which is too late to involve people in informed decision making.

Karen Buck: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

John Denham: No, I will not give way as I have very little time left.
	In the Standing Committee, the Minister must set out exactly how the procedure will work. If the House can be persuaded that it will produce more voluntary returns, the Government should implement it. But we need to be sure that it will not lead to the worst possible outcome, which is children being taken into care and parents working illegally.

Hilton Dawson: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

John Denham: No, I am running out of time, I am afraid.
	It is critical that we know which countries the Government believe are safe to return people to, and which have a return and resettlement programme. This issue already arises with single people, but now that it will be linked to the removal of benefits from families, we need to know which countries those are, and that must be open to scrutiny. Our Committee considered whether that should be a statutory process, and decided against it for obvious reasons. The Government must in every case make it perfectly clear which countries they believe it is safe to return families to.
	Those are the Committee's major conclusions, and I hope that they are helpful to the House in the weeks to come.

Robert Key: I agree with the analysis made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). He is right not to reject the Bill wholesale, but to say that there is a great deal of important work to be done in Committee. I fear that this could be a law of unintended consequences, in one respect at least.
	Last week, I was e-mailed by Mr. Michael Wills, the principal of the Salisbury School of English, who made representations about the impact of the Bill on language schools in this country. I spent Friday with the chemistry department of the university of Southampton and with my Royal Society pair, Dr. Andrew Hector. I heard from students and the vice-chancellor of the university that the Bill would have an unintended consequence for overseas students and universities up and down the country. They expressed great concern about clause 20, which also concerns me.
	In clause 20, power is given to the Secretary of State to impose fees that exceed the administrative costs of determining an application for a visa. It also gives the Secretary of State power to reflect benefits that the Secretary of State thinks are likely to accrue to the person who makes the application. In other words, the Secretary of State can say, "If someone attends a language school in Salisbury, they are likely to have a higher earning potential when they get home, so I'll screw them".
	According to the explanatory notes on the Bill, charges will be set at some stage by statutory instrument—although we do not know what the statutory instrument will say—and a further regulatory impact assessment will be completed. Today—indeed, for a week and more—it has been very difficult to get hold of the regulatory impact assessments. But it was always clear, since the press release issued by the Home Office on 27 November, that the Government intended the Bill to catch students. It states:
	"More than 500,000 non-asylum applications are expected to be made this year from people who enter the UK to work, study or join family members."
	I was relieved to hear the Home Secretary say that he would guarantee that the Home Office would consult people who would be affected in that way. What a pity that it did not do so before.
	In annexe B to a letter dated 27 October and signed by the Minister of State, a list of consultees stretching to scores of organisations makes no reference to any university or to the language school sector, or even to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which has a role in sponsoring language schools. That is astonishing,
	The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee has said that his Committee's report—and a very good report it was—was written before the Bill was published. The Committee therefore had no opportunity to scrutinise this aspect of the Bill, and to consider who might be affected and what it might cost.
	Paragraph 24 of the regulatory impact assessment states
	"The over cost charging indicative figures are that charges might range between £20-£500 but would be introduced on a rolling programme over a number of years."
	In the excellent House of Commons Library briefing for the Bill, the excellent researcher points out that in saying that, the assessment identifies the risks of introducing above-cost charging, and the entry fee is pitched at a level that encourages people to consider illegal entry, overstaying and working. In other words, the consequence of, say, a £500 surcharge on a student coming to a language school might cause him or her to try to enter the country illegally in order to avoid it. That is absurd.
	I was approached by Pat Marchiori-White from the Southwold School of English, on behalf of the Recognised English Language Schools Association, who pointed out that at present a visa for a fortnight's course in the UK costs a student £95. If the student wants to extend the visa by a week, however, it will cost £155 to do so by post and £250 to go to London in person to do so.

Tim Boswell: Exactly the same concern arose in relation to a recent order on visa fee extensions. Again, the Home Office had not consulted and the consequences were substantial. Is there not a real risk that the controversy over top-up fees will be supplemented by concern about top-up visa charges?

Robert Key: My hon. Friend is right.
	I do not accuse the Minister or the Department of a conspiracy. I have been a Minister myself, and for me the cock-up theory wins every time. I do, however, think that the Minister should look at this carefully, because the impact could be enormous. Quite simply, the business will leave this country and go elsewhere.
	The Recognised English Language Schools Association says:
	"the importance of students to the UK economy is not just what they spend on course fees, accommodation and social programmes while they are here, but their value through the affinity they develop"
	with our country. When they go home, says the association,
	"they recommend British education to others, they are more likely to return here as tourists with their families, and they are more likely to look favourably on UK suppliers in trade deals etc."
	After all, only a couple of years ago the mayor of Shanghai, who had been at a UK university, raised with the Prime Minister the whole question of the excellence of British education. In 1999 the Prime Minister launched an initiative to increase the number of foreign students attending UK universities, colleges and language schools. If the Secretary of State for Education had been standing at the Dispatch Box today, he would have trumpeted the success of the Prime Minister's initiative of 1999. Instead, the Home Secretary is doing his best to destroy it by hitting students with a succession of charges. He will drive those students, many of whom come from the Pacific rim economies, for example, to competitors in New Zealand, Canada and elsewhere. Were that to occur, it would of course have a big impact on my constituency.
	The importance of English as a foreign language to the UK economy is the main factor in arguing that the industry should not be penalised by the Government in this way. It is also extremely important to universities, as the vice-chancellor of Southampton told me last Friday. The charge already made for foreign students to extend their visas in order to complete degree courses is punitive. Of the total number of international students on UK education and training programmes, each year some 600,000 participate in English language programmes, almost 250,000 participate in higher education programmes, and 250,000 participate in other programmes. The value is enormous. Courses involving English as a foreign language bring in £1.3 billion a year to the UK economy. Higher education courses bring in much more—£3.5 billion a year. Further education courses bring in £450 million, and private sector training is responsible for some £1.6 billion. That is nearly £7 billion a year in invisible exports from this country, as a result of such people coming here.
	I am sure that Home Office Ministers never intended this outcome, and I hope that the consultation, along with the judgment, will be thorough and careful. I hope that the judgment will also be sensible and will neither discourage students from coming to this country, nor discourage science students in particular from attending British universities. I hope that drawing attention to this important problem in this way will help Ministers to make up their minds.

Neil Gerrard: This is the fifth time that I have taken part in a Second Reading debate on an asylum and immigration Bill since entering this House in 1992. It is also the fifth time that I have been told that such legislation was going to solve all the problems with the asylum and immigration system; and, of course, it is only a year since the last such Bill was debated.
	When I first looked at the Bill before us, I could not see too much of a problem with clause 28—the short title—but I have some difficulty with more or less every other clause. I then realised that I was perhaps being a bit harsh. Some clauses deal with trafficking and the powers of the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner. With some minor changes, they will be welcome, but there is not much else in the Bill that I welcome. It has been presented to some extent as a tidying-up exercise that deals with some of the remaining problems in the system, but it is not just that. The effects of some clauses, particularly clause 10, are far more fundamental.
	Of course, clause 7 does not introduce an entirely new power. Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 contains the power to allow support to be withdrawn from a family who do not co-operate with removal directions—so the Government already have that power, which can be applied to a family with a dependant. It was introduced in 2002 at a very late stage in the legislation's passage, and we had virtually no time to debate it. In fact, the total time spent debating some of the later clauses was very short indeed.
	The proposal in clause 7, however, is of a different nature. Under the clause, we will use destitution, or the threat of destitution, to get families to leave the country voluntarily, rather than using the Home Office's existing powers to remove people whose asylum claims have been rejected. We all understand that removals must take place, and that removal is not a pleasant thing. Indeed, it can be a very unpleasant exercise, especially when families with children are involved. Time and again, I see failures arising from the complete dislocation in the Home Office system. There is no real connection between decision making and enforcement, as completely different groups of people are undertaking the two processes. As a result, huge time lags occur between a decision being taken and something being done to enforce it. It is not surprising when that happens, and it has nothing to do with appeals. Appeals can all be finished, but nothing happens, so it is not surprising that people then assume that they will be allowed to stay, and do not take the removal directions seriously.
	I am not entirely comfortable with the Select Committee's recommendation that we should just wait for assurances on that matter. I referred earlier, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman), to assurances that we were given last year on section 55 of the 2002 Act—another part of that Act that was debated for a grand total of, I think, 15 minutes in this Chamber—which cut off support to people who applied late. We were then told clearly that the section was intended to deal not with people who had been in the country for only a short time, but with people who had been in the country for weeks and months, and it would not be used to deal with people who had been here a matter of days. None the less, people have had support cut off when they have been in the country for a day or less. The first time that I have heard the period of 24 hours cited as a norm has been in today's debate, when the Home Secretary cited it at the beginning, and then said that he would generously extend it to three days. That is still completely different from what we were told when the provision was introduced. When one has had such assurances in the past, one becomes a little wary of accepting them over the operation of new legislation.

Diane Abbott: May I take my hon. Friend even further back in time, to the introduction of the voucher system and totally cashless support? When some of us complained that that would only drive people further into destitution, we were told that we were wrong, and that that system would be an engine and a lever to discourage abuse of the asylum system. What happened? People were forced further into destitution. A punitive approach to asylum control demonstrably does not work.

Neil Gerrard: That argument has been put many times in this Chamber over the past few years, and it has been proved right. Punitive approaches simply do not work.
	I have one last comment on clause 7, which is on the practical implications of how it will operate. Some of us have seen a flow chart produced to illustrate how the process will run through stages involving up to four different letters from the Home Office to the family, depending on whether a family attends an interview, fails to attend without reasonable excuse and so on, through to either their leaving the country or support ending. When I looked at it, I found that there were chunks missing. I could not find any box that said "Home Office sends letter to wrong address because it doesn't have a record of a person's change of address", or "Home Office sends letter cutting off support to someone else of the same name", or "Home Office has lost the reply from the person who sent it". Believe me, all those things will happen. That is precisely what happens time and again now. I can tell hon. Members that distressed families will turn up in our surgeries time and again because of the operation of the system, and we will have the nasty job of telling them what is going to happen to them.
	Clause 7 is bad, but it is not the worst part of the Bill. The most serious part of the Bill, by some way, is clause 10, which seems to be based partly on the view that the use of appeals is just deliberate delay, and that the judicial system is not there to be used. We put the Human Rights Act 1998 in place, but we complain when someone uses it.
	As has been pointed out, clause 10 removes all judicial oversight of decisions. That is not just for asylum cases but for many immigration cases as well, which at the moment can go through that process. It will be impossible to challenge decisions on a point of law. The only person who will be able to decide whether a point of law is involved will be the president of the new tribunal. That is justified on the basis that people waste time and that the number of successful appeals is tiny—3 per cent. has been cited. I have looked at the statistics, and I think that I know where the 3 per cent. comes from, although I am not absolutely sure. The only place that I can find anything that looks like 3 per cent. is where the number of decisions made by the immigration appeal tribunal on leave to appeal is compared with the number of appeals allowed. That works out at about 3 per cent., but it is a completely spurious statistic.
	Let us examine what happens on the basis of the latest figures. Nearly 23,000 people applied for leave to go to the IAT. We heard that there were 6,900 appeals. The tribunal knows how to filter out cases that do not have much merit. It allowed 620 appeals—only 11 per cent.—but sent another 48 per cent. back to the adjudicators, so almost 60 per cent. of cases were recognised as worth looking at. That is not 60 per cent. of initial decisions, but 60 per cent. of cases that go before the IAT.
	The same applies to judicial review. Many applications are made, but the courts reject most of them and do not allow them to go much further. In 2002, there were 2,980 decisions on applications, of which only 260 were granted leave. The court gets rid of cases pretty smartly when it does not believe that there is much merit. Of those that were determined, however, 30 per cent. of people seeking judicial review won their case.
	Those are not insignificant figures, but are we playing a numbers game? I am not defending the IAT as such, or saying that I have a fundamental objection to a simplified appeals system with one tier of appeal, provided that people can still apply to the appellate courts or the higher courts, if necessary. The decision must not be made solely by the president of a tribunal. The Select Committee is wrong in saying that we should wait until we have an improved number of decisions, because it is playing the numbers game rather than examining the principles involved.
	The purpose of the higher courts such as the House of Lords is to deal not with large numbers of cases, but with important cases. They should set case law, but no case law will be established under the new system. Case law, when established, affects many people, so it is not the numbers that matter, but the principle of how a system operates. If the principle under discussion applies here, where else will it apply? We could find out how many civil or criminal cases go to the highest court in the House of Lords and express that as a percentage of all appeals. It would be tiny, so let us get rid of that. That would be just as logical as what is proposed.

Russell Brown: My hon. Friend is right that we must have a decent appeals system, but I ask him to examine it from the other side as well. Individuals and families going through an appeals system, usually represented by legal aid, are dragged through a process in the belief that there is justice and a positive answer at the end. I mention the Ay family, who were dragged through the system in Scotland, when, quite honestly, the decisions taken at an early stage were the right decisions, but someone—their legal representatives—saw fit to drag them through a system with no decent outcome at the end. Some people use the appeals system for all the wrong reasons.

Neil Gerrard: I am aware of cases where lawyers have given extremely poor advice about the chances of winning on appeal and dragged people through the system without helping them in the slightest, but the higher courts are not unskilled at quite quickly filtering out the cases with no merit at all. As I said earlier, I do not object to a basic one-tier system, provided that there is judicial oversight that allows cases that really matter to be looked at by the appellate courts—up to the House of Lords, if necessary.

David Heath: rose—

Neil Gerrard: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must finish.
	The Bill goes further than any that I have ever seen in removing judicial oversight of the asylum system. I cannot help wondering what we would have said if this Bill had been introduced by a Tory Government. I recall what was said by the then hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) when the Tories were removing certain rights to appeal in 1992:
	"It is a novel, bizarre and misguided principle of the legal system that if the exercise of legal rights is causing administrative inconvenience, the solution is to remove the right."—[Official Report, 2 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 43.]
	Now that he is Prime Minister, he should remember those words.

Elfyn Llwyd: First, let me say that Plaid Cymru and Scottish National party Members are quite happy to vote for the reasoned amendment.
	I believe that the Bill is insidious. Clause 2 deals with the criminal offence of not having travel documents without reasonable excuse. It seems to me that few asylum seekers have their own passport—indeed, possession of one's own passport is sometimes taken by immigration officers to mean that the holder is not a genuine refugee, since the authorities of a persecuting country are unlikely to issue passports that will enable people to escape. In addition, agents bringing asylum seekers to the United Kingdom generally provide them with false travel documents, which they need to board the aircraft, ferry or train, and tell their charges to destroy or dispose of them.
	Article 31 of the convention on refugees recognises the difficulties that genuine refugees are likely to face in attempting to reach a safe country. It prohibits the prosecution of asylum seekers who enter the country illegally provided that they claim asylum promptly and "show good cause" for their illegal entry. In 1999, the High Court denounced the immigration police and prosecuting authorities for their failure to implement that provision. In direct contravention of article 31, hundreds of asylum seekers who had entered the UK on false documents were being sentenced to prison terms of up to six or nine months. In response to the High Court criticism, the Government enacted legislation that provided a defence to the charge of possession of false documents. The Law Society has expressed the view that clause 2 appears to contravene article 31.
	Clause 14 makes it a criminal offence to fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a broad range of demands that the Secretary of State might make in order to obtain documentation for a person's removal, including providing fingerprints or other biometric data, making an application to the embassy of the person's country, attending interviews and answering questions, and filling in forms "accurately and completely". It is hard to think of any other field in which failure to tick a box on a form or to provide fingerprints might result in imprisonment. The maximum sentence for the offence under the clause is two years' imprisonment.
	The provisions relating to withdrawal of support have attracted the most media and public attention. They appear to me to be inhumane in the extreme. As the Home Office itself has acknowledged, the difficulty is that many countries of origin are simply not safe enough to send failed asylum seekers back to. Such countries, including Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone and Iraq, are the subjects of Home Office policy scrutiny. Nationals of other countries simply find themselves in limbo, unable to work or obtain support, yet never told to report for removal. It is feared that denial of support will result in whole families going underground to prevent children from being taken into care, leading to a swelling underclass of people working as sweated labour in inhuman conditions for virtually nothing, unable to obtain health care or send their children to school on pain of discovery and separation.
	I am told that Government lawyers have warned the Home Secretary that the proposal to withdraw all state benefits from rejected asylum seekers will trigger human rights challenges in the courts. I am also advised that the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, has protested to the Home Secretary about that proposal and about the provisions restricting access to the High Court to challenge decisions through judicial review. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are expected to urge the public to consider backing even more far-reaching proposals, including much greater use of detention of asylum seekers and, in effect, rewriting the 1951 Geneva convention on refugees. No doubt they will be told some things at big conversation events that focus on this subject.
	Britain's directors of social services have also joined the mounting opposition to the package. They have said that the threat to take children of failed asylum seekers into care is something that
	"belongs to an earlier century."
	Andrew Cozens, president of the Association of Directors of Social Services, has said that the move runs contrary to the objectives of the Children Act 1989. That is obvious.
	The detailed explanatory notes accompanying the Bill make it clear that Whitehall will foot the extra costs involved in taking children into care, using savings made when rejected families leave Britain in the face of that threat. They also state that that could amount to inhuman and degrading treatment and a breach of the right to respect for private and family life under the European convention. However, I understand that lawyers have also advised the Home Secretary that if those people leave, their legal challenge on that basis will end as a result.
	I cannot understand how that one-tier appeal system will improve matters. Before the Bill was published, it was not made clear that rights of appeal and review from the tribunal to the High Court, and from the Court of Appeal to the House of Lords, were also to be abolished. The "ouster" clause proclaims that no court may entertain proceedings questioning the tribunal's decision, even if there is a breach of natural justice, an irregularity or error of law, or any other problem. It is astonishing that we should be considering bringing in such an insidious Bill as this.

David Heath: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that an especially repugnant factor is that a Ministry of the Executive should be asking Parliament to accept that no decision that it takes should be subject to judicial overview? Does not that underline my argument that we need a Ministry of justice that is entirely separate from the Home Office's executive functions?

Elfyn Llwyd: I agree entirely. In no field other than immigration is recourse to the higher courts prevented. Such prevention is, of course, in breach of article 13 of the European convention on human rights. The Court of Appeal has frequently spoken about the high constitutional importance of access to the courts. Senior judges are likely to oppose the attempt to deprive them of their supervisory role, especially in asylum cases, where the consequence of getting it wrong can be fatal. The Home Office and the immigration appeal tribunal have frequently got it wrong in the past.
	The deprivation of access to the higher courts has to be seen in the context of the proposals to remove legal aid from asylum claimants, thereby reducing their access to proper advice. On the one hand, asylum seekers are told that they will be given one chance to persuade a legal body of the merits of their claim. However, on the other hand, they are to be deprived of the legal help required to do that. In addition, most asylum seekers do not speak English and are unfamiliar with the procedure. Many are suffering from the physical and psychological effects of their experiences, and are dispersed to parts of the country where legal expertise is sparse and where they face hostility and marginalisation. Others receive no support at all and are supposed to prepare and present their claims while they are homeless and have no means of support.

Jeremy Corbyn: I think that the hon. Gentleman is on to an extremely important point. Does he recall that when the Home Secretary opened the debate he said that there are 30,000 asylum seekers in London who receive benefit but are not given accommodation? That shows that people come to London because they see it as a place of safety, where there is a degree of community network and public charitable support for them that is denied in other parts of the country?

Elfyn Llwyd: That is absolutely right. It is understandable that that community support would exist in London, as there are many people in similar situations. Problems are always worse—or at least as bad—in rural areas. We do not talk about rural areas often, but they face problems too. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is true even of parts of rural Wales.
	It will be hard to monitor the denial of access to the higher courts, but I cannot accept that we should legislate for a second-class justice system. One significant cause of delay and inefficiency in the asylum system is flawed decision making. The Home Secretary has admitted that that needs to be improved. That is borne out by the large number of successful appeals.
	Plans to remove judicial scrutiny are therefore worrying, and I shall refer briefly to the Law Society's position. It says:
	"The Law Society believes that a second tier appeal is currently essential in view of the poor quality of Home Office decision-making at the initial stage, which means that in many cases adjudicators are, in effect, the first instance decision-making body. If the Government proceeds with the removal of the IAT second tier appeal it is absolutely essential that improvements to Home Office initial decision-making are made concurrently."
	In a letter to The Times last week, Roger Smith, the director of Justice, similarly said:
	"The Council on Tribunals complained . . . in April that 'better-quality decision-making at first instance' and 'speedier and better preparation of appeal papers by the Home Office' were among the conditions required to ensure an appeal process of adequate quality."
	He went on to say:
	"The removal of judicial oversight provides no incentive to raise or maintain standards."
	Those quotes come from people who know what they are talking about.
	The Refugee Council is worried about the package in the Bill and says that several of its provisions breach article 31 of the convention on refugees. It says:
	"The Government proposes to remove support from families in a position to leave the UK. Support under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989 will not be available to asylum seeking families. If necessary, children will be separated from their families"—
	as we know. Most seriously, the implication that children could be taken from their parents and placed in care flies against the aim of the Children Act, under which the well-being of a child is, and must be, paramount. The Government propose to reject that principle for young children, who will find themselves in an awful legal limbo, although the situation is nothing to do with them. Experience has shown that the removal of support under section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 has increased destitution and put refugee communities under further pressure, and the provision has resulted in 800 High Court injunctions. The withdrawal of section 20 of the Children Act will undermine the principles of that Act.
	The Bill is insidious. If there is a blockage in the asylum system, the problem should be tackled by improving the quality of decision making. We do not need the Bill. Its proposals might look good in the Daily Mail, but it is awful. I shall be proud to vote for the reasoned amendment.

Diane Abbott: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words about the Bill. If one comments adversely about the themes and underlying principles of the Government's policy on immigration and asylum, one is often told that that is because one does not understand the problem and how people feel about it, or that one is trying to deny that a problem exists. My constituency probably has more asylum seekers, immigrants and economic migrants than the constituencies of most hon. Members—apart from half a dozen of my hon. Friends—so I am only too aware of the challenges posed by asylum.
	My constituency has its fair share of casual bigotry about asylum seekers. I hear all the remarks that my hon. Friends hear, such as, "If I were an asylum seeker, I would get rehoused," or, "These asylum seekers come over here and get everything." I hear bigotry from British constituents who are white and from British constituents who are black. If I hear comments that have substance in fact, I deal with the facts, but if the comments are just casual bigotry, I name them as such. However, I do not come to the House to demand ever more draconian measures. I tell my hon. Friends that they will of course hear casual bigotry because people want to scapegoat asylum seekers for their many dissatisfactions, but Labour Members should be able to do better than colluding with that by coming back to the House to demand ever more draconian enforcement and legislation.
	I want to speak about three things: removals, clause 7 and clause 10. There is no doubt that the level of removals is low, but I point out to Conservative Members that the level was even lower under their Government. But what does that prove? Does it prove that successive Conservative Home Secretaries, such as the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), were greater bleeding heart liberals than our own Home Secretary? No, not a bit of it. What it proves is that removals are extremely contentious and that they are difficult to achieve.

Humfrey Malins: What it proves is that under the last Conservative Government there were fewer failed asylum applications because there were fewer asylum seekers altogether. The number in the last year of the previous Conservative Government was only a third of the number last year, under the Labour Government.

Diane Abbott: It is easy to demand more removals, but tricky to achieve them, not least because when it comes to forced removals one of the organisations that is most reluctant to get involved is the police force. Of course, we must have a more effective system of removals, but we should not fool ourselves that the mass removal of people who may have been settled in this country for a long time is either practical or desirable. We would be dealing with a few small areas where there are quite large groups of people. There would be scenes on our televisions and written about in our newspapers that the British people would not tolerate, whatever the Daily Mail and the Daily Express ran in their leader columns. Let us not be glib about removals. If it were so easy to remove people, the number of removals under the Tories would have been much higher.
	On the issues relating to children under clause 7, I have heard the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration say, very reasonably, that reasonable, sensible parents, faced with the prospect that their children would be taken into care, would agree to go back whence they fled. They would do the reasonable and sensible thing, take the plane ticket and go back. She clearly has not done what some of my hon. Friends have been doing for 17 years: she has not sat across a table from people whose asylum or immigration case was going nowhere and told them what they have already heard half a dozen times from lawyers, advisers or social workers. She has not had to try to talk to such people only to see complete disbelief and terror in their eyes.
	Reasonable people, people in the Minister's position, take reasonable decisions. Desperate people—those with whom I and some of my colleagues deal week in and week out—take unreasonable and irrational decisions. Tragically, some parents faced with that choice will take the ticket and go home, but many others will find themselves forced underground, or even more vulnerable and marginalised than they were before.
	I do not care if most parents take reasonable decisions. If some parents are so frightened of going home to face torture, political persecution and, yes, economic chaos and destitution—something that we in this place cannot really get our heads round—that they are prepared to see their children go into care, that is a situation that no decent Government should bring about. The use of even one child as an instrument to enforce the removal of its parents is one child too many. As a Government, we cannot use the threat of destitution or losing a child as an instrument of asylum policy. There must be better methods than that.
	One method would be to increase the efficiency of the system. Year after year, I have said in the Chamber that the biggest incentives for making phoney asylum claims and for working the system are the interminable delays—the dislocation between enforcement and removal. Why do not we get the system working properly? Why do not we cut out the delays caused by the Home Office itself? Why do not we ensure that we have an efficient system before we turn to people and say, "Guess what? We're going to use your child as a lever to remove you from this country."
	We have heard what the British Association of Social Workers said. Even the Select Committee on Home Affairs said that we should defer the clause until we have some statistics on its likely effects. I cannot believe that the clause will not be challengeable under the Race Relations Act 1976. It will inevitably bear most heavily on children and families with an ethnic minority background. I put it to Ministers before it is too late—just as we tried to appeal to them on the issue of vouchers—that they should think again about a thoughtless and punitive piece of policy which I do not believe will bear scrutiny, and will hold them up to an extremely harsh light. Like so much that has been done under asylum and immigration policy over the past seven years, clause 7 wholly underestimates the desperation of the people with whom we are dealing.
	I move on to clause 10. It is with a sense of timidity that I tread into legal matters—so many distinguished barristers are waiting to speak on these matters. The point at issue is the cutting off of a group of people who are currently resident in these islands. The clause will cut them off from proper review and appeal processes. I do not object to one tier of appeal, so long as there is some possibility that where necessary and where appropriate, they can take their case to a higher court.
	I shall quote Lord Denning—I cannot do the accent—ex parte Gilmore. In 1957 he said:
	"If tribunals were to be at liberty to exceed their jurisdiction without any check by the court, the rule of law would be at an end."
	I did not say that. It was not said by a member of an extreme left-wing group; as I said, it was Lord Denning. The issue that clause 10 raises goes wider than the issue of asylum—it goes to the heart of the way in which we organise our legal system. If we can get away with removing proper appeals and proper legal redress from asylum seekers, what other group that is not popular with the Daily Mail will we move on tomorrow and the day after? We cannot offer one standard of legal redress to one part of our population and another standard of legal redress to the rest of the population because that particular part of it, this morning, is getting negative leaders in Associated Press newspapers.
	We could greatly improve the pure administration of immigration and asylum policy. I support Ministers who have recently begun to talk about the need for a managed system of economic migration. Sadly, this Bill, which is the fifth on asylum and immigration that I have spoken on since 1997, is yet another Bill that is more concerned with appeasing leader writers at the Daily Mail and the Daily Express than with building a coherent, a fair and a non-racist system of asylum.

Tony Baldry: There is no confidence in the Government's asylum policy. Organisations concerned with the welfare of asylum seekers do not have confidence in the Government's policy. Professional organisations, such as the Law Society and the British Medical Association, do not have confidence in the Government's policy. People generally do not have confidence in it. That is in no small part because the Government appear not to know from one day to the next what their asylum policy is.
	I shall take one simple and straightforward example. Clause 7 adds a new paragraph to schedule 3 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Incidentally, we appear to have annual asylum Bills. Doubtless the Queen's Speech in 2004 will contain another such Bill.
	The purpose of clause 7 is to make it clear that failed asylum seekers with families will cease to be eligible for public support. The Government are clearly having considerable difficulty in working out what the new clause means. The Bill, in whatever form, is clearly bad news. The General Council of the Bar has said that
	"if passed into law, not only will . . . this Bill severely curtail the rights of asylum seekers and immigrants, but it will set a very dangerous precedent, and send a most unfortunate message around the world."
	The United Nations has said that
	"the UK Government has been the subject of severe criticism from the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Joint Committee on Human Rights about its treatment of children. It will be impossible to ensure that legislation operates within the framework of the Children Act 1989."
	Before the Bill was published, Home Office officials briefed journalists heavily, saying that one of the consequences of the provision was that children of failed asylum seekers could and would be taken into local authority care. Consider the Prime Minister's comments, as reported by the Press Association on Thursday 4 December:
	"If someone makes an asylum claim and their claim fails, and they exhaust all their appeals, and we say to them 'we will pay your fare back to your country of origin'; if they refuse we are saying we are going to withdraw social security benefits from those people. In those circumstances, asylum seekers' children are being treated no different than anybody else's".
	The Prime Minister could not have made the position clearer. He had obviously been briefed by Home Office Ministers on the same basis as the media. There was a public outcry, and almost immediately Ministers changed their tune. The Home Secretary went on the BBC programme "Any Questions?" the next day to deny any such suggestions. On the Thursday, the Prime Minister said one thing, but on the Friday the Home Secretary said something completely different. In the transcript of the exchange between the Home Secretary and Jonathan Dimbleby, the Home Secretary says:
	"It would be a choice of the parents not of us."
	Mr. Dimbleby asks:
	"But if they aren't encouraged then presumably if the children, in your view, face destitution then there will be a requirement on the appropriate officials to go into people's houses where the parents are with their children and forcibly remove the children from the parents.
	The Home Secretary replies:
	"The encouragement is not about taking their children away, the encouragement is to say we cannot have a system where you fail but we carry on paying you and housing you because if we do who the hell will leave voluntarily, it means with each and every family—each and every family have got to be pulled out."
	That is markedly different in tone from the Prime Minister's comments. The Home Secretary's comments also differ from those of his colleague, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration. I tabled a straightforward parliamentary question in which I asked the Secretary of State
	"how many children of asylum seekers he estimates will be taken into local authority care each year following the Government's recent announcement."
	The Minister replied on 8 December:
	"It is not the Government's intention that any children will be taken into care as a result of this proposal."—[Official Report, 8 December 2003; Vol. 415, c. 235W.]
	That answer is unambiguous—no children of asylum seekers should be taken into care as a consequence of the Bill.
	Explanatory notes to the Bill were published on 27 November, the same day as the Bill itself, but before the Minister answered my parliamentary question. The notes clearly refer to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc.) Bill, and paragraph 25 states:
	"Failed asylum seekers with dependent children receive asylum support until such time as they leave the United Kingdom or fail to comply with a removal direction . . . if the Secretary of State certifies that, in his opinion, such a person has failed without reasonable excuse to take reasonable steps to leave the United Kingdom voluntarily or place himself in a position in which he is able to leave the United Kingdom voluntarily . . . then asylum support for the family will cease. The family is also rendered ineligible for various other types of support or assistance, although the children in the family may still be supported by, for example, the local authority."
	In other words, failed asylum seekers will be told to leave the country, and if they do not their children will be taken into care. What is in the Bill is therefore completely different from what Ministers are telling Members of Parliament, non-governmental organisations and the public generally.
	If one had any doubts about the meaning and import of that explanatory note, the interpretation is confirmed by paragraph 121:
	"A possible consequence of creating a . . . class of person (failed asylum seeker family) who will cease to be eligible for support . . . is that some children might have to be accommodated by local authorities. The costs to local authorities of children being accommodated under these circumstances will be met by Central Government. The savings made by this measure should cover any such costs."
	On 8 December, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration told me that no children would be taken into care, yet the explanatory notes that the Government have provided make it clear that they do expect children to be taken into care. How can there be any confidence in a Government policy on which the media is briefed one day, confirmed by the Prime Minister the next, denied by the Home Secretary just one day later, denied by a Minister of State in an answer to a written parliamentary question a few days later, yet confirmed in black and white in the explanatory notes to the Bill that the Government are introducing? How can there be any confidence in a Government who appear not to know—or, if they do know, appear unwilling to admit—the Bill's purposes and intentions?
	The matter is relevant and important to the residents of north Oxfordshire. The House will know that the Government intend to build an accommodation centre for up to 750 asylum seekers on the outskirts of Bicester. The origins of the policy are the Government's knee-jerk "we have to be seen to be doing something about it" mode of response. For a while, they were deeply embarrassed by nightly television reports of asylum seekers coming through the channel tunnel from the Sangatte refugee camp. Something had to be done. They wanted an initiative—any initiative—to give the impression that they had a grip on the problem.
	The Home Secretary proposed accommodation centres for asylum seekers where they would be processed and dealt with on one site. The only difficulty was that he had used up all his good will with the Treasury, which was understandably exasperated by the ever-spiralling cost of the Government's asylum policy. The Treasury told the Home Secretary that he could go ahead with his trial for accommodation centres, but the funds would be limited—so limited that the only place they could be built was on land already owned by the Government—and as a consequence, they would have to be big accommodation centres. Hence the proposal for 750 asylum seekers to be accommodated on former Ministry of Defence land at Bicester.
	That is an utterly friendless policy. There is not a single organisation that supports the proposal. Originally, the Government intended to use their emergency powers to push through the proposal, without even the most cursory scrutiny by the planning system. Having appreciated that that course of action might result in judicial review, the Government eventually submitted the proposal for planning approval, which in due course led to a public planning inquiry.
	Again, people thought that they knew what Ministers were saying. On 5 November 2002, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration said at the Dispatch Box:
	"The Government have made it clear that we will abide by the planning process, and by the outcome of any public inquiry. That is both fair and democratic".—[Official Report, 5 November 2002; Vol. 392, c. 152.]
	I was a planning Minister for four years, and believe that almost everyone would consider the outcome of a planning inquiry to be the decisions and recommendations of the planning inspector—almost everyone except the Deputy Prime Minister. Having considered thousands of pages of written evidence, including that of Home Office lawyers, and having heard 48 witnesses in person over a period of two weeks between December 2002 and March this year, the planning inspector concluded that the
	"first Secretary of State should not give approval for proposed development".
	The outcome of the planning inquiry was clear and unambiguous. The planning inspector adjudged that the centre should not be built. He concluded that such an accommodation centre contradicted the Government's own planning guidance and would put an additional burden on already overstretched local public services, and that such a location for an accommodation centre raised safety concerns for local residents and asylum seekers alike. The planning inspector comprehensively rejected the Government's proposals.
	The Deputy Prime Minister ignored the planning inspector's conclusions and put two fingers up to the inquiry. He behaved as though the public inquiry had never taken place, and decreed that as the Government wanted the accommodation centre, and notwithstanding the planning inspector's recommendations, the accommodation centre for asylum seekers would go ahead. Ministers have decided to try to press on with proposals to build the centre, notwithstanding the concerns of local people, the objections of Cherwell district council, the conclusions of the planning inquiry, and the fact that not a single organisation concerned with the welfare of refugees supports the Government's plans.
	That is neither fair nor democratic. The proposal is fundamentally flawed on policy and planning grounds and would probably cost taxpayers millions of pounds if it went ahead. It is almost certainly doomed to failure. Is it any wonder that there is no confidence in the Government's asylum policy? The decision is subject to possible judicial review so, under the rules of the House, I shall say no more about it.
	Under the Government's proposal for the accommodation centre at Bicester, 750 people will be processed every six months—that is, 1,500 people a year. Many of those will be single young men, but a not inconsiderable number will be families with children. At present, on average, eight out of every 10 asylum applications fail. There is no reason to believe that the failure rate at Bicester will be any different, which will mean that a not inconsiderable number of families with children will be refused asylum. In the words of the explanatory notes, children will have to be
	"supported by . . . the local authority"—
	taken into care.
	Children taken into care are potentially the responsibility of the local authority until they reach the age of 18. There could be a substantial and accumulating number of children, which will be a substantial new responsibility and burden for Oxfordshire county council. The children taken into care will have to be educated; they will require schooling. I understand from the Department of Health's figures that that would cost at least £16,900 per child, and for some special needs children Oxfordshire is paying as much as £91,624 per child in care.
	When Ministers, Cabinet Ministers, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister cannot agree from day to day on the basics of their asylum policy, it is not surprising that there is no confidence in their having thought through the ramifications or the details of the consequences of their policies. When Ministers ignore the totality of evidence presented at a planning inquiry as if it had never happened, it is not surprising that there is little confidence that they are approaching the issues in a sensible, proportionate and balanced way.
	The Bill, which meanders from forgery to fingerprints to electronic monitoring, will doubtless find its way on to the statute book, but undoubtedly it will not reassure north Oxfordshire residents that the Government have a grip on asylum policy; indeed, quite the contrary. The Government feel—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his time.

Vera Baird: I profoundly disagree with the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who led, though with some hesitancy, for the Opposition, that the asylum system is in real difficulties. I am very impressed by the progress that has been made by the Home Office with the asylum system in recent months in speeding it up. In short, I would describe the Home Secretary and the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration as having brought it back from the brink. They have started to turn it into a legitimately effective system—speeding it up, cutting the backlogs, halving the applications. I accept, too, that there is more to do and that further steps have to be taken to achieve greater efficiency.
	Subject to the Standing Committee's deliberations and to a good deal of anxiety, and I hope a good deal of Government flexibility, I could even be persuaded that further strong measures to persuade people to be removed are necessary, but if there are to be tougher removal measures, it is critical that we are sure that we will remove the right people, and that requires a proper judicial process with a proper appellate system.
	At present, asylum seekers apply to the Home Office and the appeals, as we know, go to Home Office adjudicators, who allow about 22 per cent. of those appeals. But what is clear, and I think is admitted by those on the Government Front Bench, is that the quality of those initial decisions is very poor. What is also clear, and I am very ready to accept, is that many appeals beyond that are put forward when they have little hope of success.
	As I said in an intervention, there are excellent practitioners and there are very poor ones. Very good asylum practitioners bringing proper appeals have success rates of 90 per cent. That is how poor the calibre of initial decision taking is, and how unrepresentative even that quite high figure of a 20 per cent. success rate is.
	It is clear that the quality of decision making at the beginning should be improved, but it is equally clear that we must root out those charlatan advisers who push families through an appellate process inappropriately, doing them no harm and everybody else a good deal of damage. However, the Legal Services Commission is beginning to know who they are, it is beginning to weed them out, and it can do more. That is the job that should be being done now. The problem is the slack in the system, which can be weeded out in the ways that I have mentioned.
	At present, appeals from adjudicators go to a High Court judge chairing a panel, and that is the tier that would be abolished. I can say, without any fear of contradiction, that that is by far the best tier that exists in the asylum system. First, it is presided over by a High Court judge; adjudicators are not that—I will say what they are in a minute. It is speedy, efficient, self-regulating, it has recently speeded up its processes and it polices its own considerations, so it grants leave for itself to review cases only if there is merit in them. That is proper judicial supervision.
	It is so odd to be trying to abolish that tier, because, as has already been said, it is terrifically good at weeding out exactly the appeals that should not go any further—those that are put in by some of the less good advisers. It weeded out nearly 23,000 applications for leave, and since the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 removed any power to appeal by judicial review against the decision not to allow an appeal, that is really the end for a vast number of appeals. That is an important role and that too will be abolished if that tier of appeals is abolished. Moreover, it works—this is important—on a proper legal merits basis. It has been said, but it bears repeating, that when it accepts that appeals have been properly brought, the panel allows 60 per cent. of them—that is to say, 60 per cent. of adjudicators' decisions that are properly appealed are defective.
	The intention is to scrap all appeals to that tribunal, which is crazy. The process will simply stop at the adjudicators. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary called them judges, but that is not right. Their numbers have been rapidly increased through recruitment to cope with the huge burden of work. The only qualification that is required is to be a solicitor or a barrister of seven years' standing—they do not even need to have dealt with an immigration or asylum case before. They are not highly trained, and they are under huge time pressure—it is common for them to deal with three cases a day. They tell us that they have to work at breakneck speed, to deal with badly reasoned Home Office decisions, to conduct a fresh inquiry from the start, to look at the background country conditions again from the beginning, and to consider all the relevant legal principles. They are required to consider natural justice in highly complex situations, and to look at a mass of national laws and rules and a mass of international law principles from a variety of conventions. They often have to do that without well qualified representatives before them, and sometimes there are no representatives.

Humfrey Malins: Are adjudicators less qualified than district judges?

Vera Baird: They do not have to be qualified in the area of work that they are intended to deal with. It would be rare to get such a vast increase in recruitment of district judges. I could tell the hon. Gentleman some horror stories about people who are working in this field.
	The tribunal that will be the beginning and the end of every asylum seeker's appeal process has, on a legally scrutinised basis, a 60 per cent. failure rate. Clause 10 says:
	"No court shall have any supervisory or other jurisdiction"
	over any of its determinations or decisions, even if such a decision was a nullity because there was a lack of jurisdiction, an irregularity, an error of law, a breach of natural justice, or for any other reason. It is the be all and end all.
	What is to be gained at this judicial appeal? Frankly, nothing worth having. It will be able to review its own decisions. That means that a person appeals to the same people, so that the issue is not between them and the Home Office, but between the Home Office and the tribunal—and it is the tribunal that does the decision making. That is called being the judge in one's own cause—or, as we would see it up in Redcar, it is like Boro playing the Magpies with the referee coming from Middlesbrough. The fact that that is the only way in which we would ever win the match is beside the point. One has to ask what is the point of such an appeal. If the tribunal upholds its own decision or refuses to review it, one can do nothing about it—one is dealing with the same people with the same level of qualifications and training, who get many things wrong.
	Another overwhelming principle is involved. The adjudicator
	"who knows that his decision may be subject to appeal is likely to be a good deal more circumspect, careful and even-handed than the officer who knows that his power of decision is absolute. That is simply, I fear, a matter of human nature, quite apart from anything else."—[Official Report, 2 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 43.]
	I am quoting the Prime Minister, and he was right. There is nothing to put in its place. There is a nominal power for the president of the adjudication body to refer on to the Court of Appeal for advice. However, he will not necessarily be a High Court judge, because that requirement has been removed since the previous Act: he need be no more than an ordinary adjudicator.
	There is no provision for anybody to ask the president to make a referral; there is no procedure for that. How will he determine the cases that he refers on a principled basis? How many hundreds of adjudicators must he supervise? Even if one can write to ask him to use his powers, there are no criteria whereby he decides whether to do that. He does not even have to read the letter. The correspondent will never know whether he has done so. There are no legal precedents to guide him about the decision because the immigration appeal tribunal—the body that sets them—has gone.
	If the president sends the right case and the point of law is found to be wrong, there is no means of enforcing the finding. The victim of the wrong point of law can do nothing. The Court of Appeal has the power only to make an advisory ruling. It may be clear that I should not be deported to Burma—someone was almost deported to Burma a couple of weeks ago, despite all that is said about that country—but there is no way to enforce that right because the Court of Appeal's power is merely advisory. Neither power—to refer and to advise—is worth much. The process therefore starts and finishes with adjudicators, who, as we have witnessed, are frequently wrong, yet make decisions about life and death.
	I accept that there is delay in the current system. Some lawyers and advisers—for cash or political correctness—waste time and resources. That is the problem, and the Legal Services Commission should close those lawyers down. The immigration appeal tribunal is speedy and efficient, has good procedures, is effective in weeding out poor applications and finds that 60 per cent. of those left have been decided erroneously. It has proper processes. All we are left with is an adjudicator's decision being checked by the adjudicator at the next desk. That cannot achieve the same result. We must be careful not to act on a call for efficiency and deliver gross injustice.

Andrew Turner: The Bill is fairly adequate and can be considerably improved. I am sure that we shall have the opportunity to improve it as it proceeds. I begin by describing what my constituents—and, I am sure, those of many other hon. Members—perceive as the problem that we are trying to resolve. The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), who is no longer in his place, denied that there was a problem.
	The problem is a gross overflow of asylum seekers and other immigrants to this country, to the extent that 20 per cent. of the population of London are of ethnic minority origin, and 80 per cent. of the population of the country want better control of the immigration process. It is evident that the Home Office has no idea of the numbers. It produces a variety of statistics on different occasions and challenges the information that organisations such as Migrationwatch UK provide. The Home Office believes that there are 45,000 people from Colombia in this country, whereas the Colombian embassy believes that the figure is 250,000. Perhaps both are wrong.
	In such circumstances, it is hardly surprising that people are prepared to say what they would have been ashamed to say 10 years ago. According to a recent poll, between a third and a half of the population accepts that, as individuals, they are "mildly racist". The term has been abused so much and applied to so many that people think that, if it is racist to question the number of migrants to this country, they are prepared to admit that it applies to them. I do not believe that it is racist to challenge the number of migrants, and it is not wrong for the Government to act to put right the deficiencies of the immigration system that my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) outlined so effectively.
	The 200,000 or so people who come to this country every year put huge pressure not only on London but on the outer boroughs, the countryside around London and as far away as my constituency. It is no surprise that, when 200,000 people a year come to this country and 200,000 new houses are required in the south-east every year, people see a connection.
	That situation will become even worse when the new countries join the European Union shortly. It is estimated that, as a result of the Nice treaty, 72 million people will be entitled to live in this country, although not all of them will come here. The draft constitution that we just escaped having imposed upon us last weekend provided for immigration to become a joint competence and therefore out of the control of the House altogether. That is not something that I find satisfactory.
	I am glad that the Government—unlike the Liberal Democrats—recognise that there is a problem and that they are taking some steps to resolve it. However, those steps are meagre and inadequate, for various reasons. As the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said, it would be better if we could also get the processes right, but that does not absolve the Government of responsibility to put through this legislation, with some amendments.
	Let us look at what is wrong with the Bill, because there is quite a lot. Clause 7 is certainly open to criticism, and one of the problems was that the Home Office had not briefed that clause 7 meant that children would be taken into care, while No. 10 Downing street had briefed to that effect. The Minister did not deny that No. 10 had provided that briefing; she denied that the Home Office had done so—

Beverley Hughes: That was not the claim.

Andrew Turner: That is indeed what was claimed. The Minister will have heard the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). I am not an expert on these matters, but it seemed to me that the Home Office was delivering an honest briefing while No. 10 was issuing a briefing thought to be more suitable for the columns of the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph. Perhaps that is where the problem arises.
	If children will be taken into care as a result of the implementation of clause 7, would it not be more useful if some of the responsible bodies contributed charitably to the sustenance and support of those children, so that they did not have to be taken into care? I refer to bodies such as the Law Society, Liberty, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, Justice, the Refugee Council, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and a host of others that constantly try to undermine the efforts of this Government and previous ones to control the number of migrants to this country. Their making such a contribution would be a much more useful and effective use of their time and energy.
	I referred in an intervention on the Home Secretary to one of the key problems, which is that too many lawyers are making too much money by giving inadequate advice—in some cases, wholly inadequate advice—to people, and raising their hopes in the way that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington described. I have two examples of that. The first involves a man of Chinese origin who was advised by a mainland lawyer to get a letter from his Member of Parliament—that is, me—to support his application. I am not competent to provide a letter saying anything other than what that person has told me. I do not undertake investigations into whether people are telling me the truth. Why is his lawyer advising him to get a letter from a Member of Parliament, as though that would make a difference to the process? The unsupported word of a Member of Parliament written on the basis of unsupported evidence provided by someone who may have been resident in his constituency for less than a fortnight certainly should not make a difference.
	The second, similar example is that of a person who came to this country from Italy, claimed asylum and spent six months going through the asylum process. He was subsequently convicted of rape. A number of statutory agencies gave information in support of him and his family remaining in the country, which turned out not to be supported by the information that he and his wife subsequently gave.

Keith Vaz: Surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Government should take away the right of Members of Parliament to make representations in immigration cases. Clearly, we must accept what our constituents say to us. It is an important right to be able to make representations to Ministers, and to leave it to Ministers and officials to make the decision.

Andrew Turner: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Indeed, it is an important right for us to make representations, but it is not the right of someone who has lived in a constituency for two weeks to demand that a Member of Parliament supply a letter. It is certainly wrong for a lawyer supported from the public purse to advise someone that they have that right.

Jeremy Corbyn: Surely any constituent has a right to go to his Member of Parliament. Whether his Member of Parliament makes representations is down to that Member of Parliament. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his remark that people have no right to do that. Everyone has a right to go to their MP.

Andrew Turner: I said that that person had no right to expect such a letter. That is what I intended to say anyway, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I did not make that clear.
	I should like to move on to some improvements that could be made to the Bill. Representing the Isle of Wight, I am well aware of the fantasy island argument, which I believe originated with my friend in the European Parliament, Tim Kirkhope, who produced a paper for my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) when he was shadow Home Secretary. If we implement my right hon. Friend's other proposals, it is important that we find a place where those who end up in this country can be placed pending a decision, whether that decision is taken by the British Government or by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
	In my view, it is appropriate that people in those circumstances should be confined and not able to move out into the community. One way of doing that is to put them at some distant place offshore. That may be a British dependent territory, or there may be other territories where those arrangements could be made. [Hon. Members: "Where?"] I hear what hon. Members say. I am not in a position to tell them where it is, but that is the sort of place that we—and the Government if they are wise—should be looking for. It should be somewhere from which people do not have the right to return to this country.
	We should consider providing temporary leave to remain for asylum seekers if we believe that circumstances may change in their home country. There are many Iraqis in this country who will be grateful for the changes that have taken place in Iraq recently, but we should ask whether they are entitled to remain here indefinitely, because they came here when there were problems in their home country.
	I welcome the proposals on loss of documentation. I hope that that provision will not operate to the disadvantage of British carriers. If people arrive on these shores in carriers from other countries, perhaps those carriers should be persuaded to provide a bond for their good behaviour.
	Will the Home Secretary consider more effective coastal controls? We have the coastguard, Customs and Excise and the immigration and nationality directorate, and between them they cover the 57 miles of coastline in my constituency, most of which is rural, for half a day a week if we are lucky. I think that there should be a single agency to cover coastal security, because not just immigration but smuggling needs to be covered. I also think that the immigration service should have the power to enforce removals, so that the police need not be involved.
	As I have said, great improvements could be made to the Bill, and I hope that that will be possible in Committee. As I told the Home Secretary earlier, he is making difficult judgments and there are no simple solutions, but it is not right for children to be used as a weapon by the Home Secretary to effect the removal of their parents, or for them to be used as a weapon by their parents to secure the acquiescence of our immigration policy in their remaining unlawfully in this country.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I shall try not to use all the time available to me, not least because clause 7 was dealt with magnificently by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), and clause 10 was dealt with similarly by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), who I thought was at her compelling and frightening best. Those clauses are the two iniquities in the Bill. When it is written in a Bill that children are at risk of impoverishment, that is a matter warranting the utmost scrutiny, demanding the utmost answer.
	The answer that we received from the Minister today was very simple. She said that the solution lay in the hands of parents. They had the option of returning whence they came or had been sent, and we would throw in some money to help them. The responsibility was theirs.
	Let me echo what was said by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). It is deplorable that parents should use their children to obtain benefit or advantage. That happens in this country, among our indigenous population, thousands if not hundreds of thousands of times each day. It is, however, infinitely more deplorable that the state should attempt to use children to deny that benefit or advantage, however illegal it may be. The Minister's response that she is sure—profoundly sure—that parents faced with that alternative will go back, no matter what the consequences may be, simply underlines the power of the threat without attempting to explain away the threat itself.
	Let me now turn to the part of the Bill on which I have concentrated during the debate—clause 10, which deals with the removal of judicial oversight, judicial review, the Court of Appeal or any form of judicial counterweight to the tribunal that we are setting up. Judicial review is an ancient right that goes back to the Star Chamber. No tribunal in the country is free from judicial review. If we pass the Bill in its present form, we will pass a measure that—in peacetime—has been without compare for centuries.
	It is worth reflecting on precisely what that means. It means that the tribunal, once established, can make any decision, however unreasonable, even if it is so unreasonable that no tribunal could previously have arrived at it. The decision may be capricious, but it will be immutable and without challenge. The tribunal will be able to act entirely outside the powers that we in Parliament have given it, and that too will be immutable and without challenge. That is the extent of the Bill that we are being asked to pass, and it is entirely unique.
	The other aspect, which has already been touched on, is the effect of the appeal process on tribunals. If I may, I shall draw from my own limited experience. I have sat as a temporary judge since 1982, and I can say without hesitation that it concentrates the mind wonderfully to know that one's decisions, whatever they are, will be the subject of judicial review. But in this case, the only review will be that by the tribunal itself. The tribunal will have the capacity to look again at its decision, but that is not an appeal process. If I were asked to review a decision that I had taken, I would have a natural proclivity to think that it was probably right, particularly if I knew that there was no appeal against it. That is the extent of the power that we are giving to such tribunals.
	It is interesting to reflect that no tribunal in this country is free from judicial review. If a planning tribunal that is deciding whether a conservatory may be put up acts unreasonably or outside its powers, it is subject to judicial review. Here, we are talking about a tribunal that can decide whether a person is liable to torture or death, yet its decision will not be the subject of any review.
	We must be careful where we travel in this regard. Recent history's examples of repressive or oppressive regimes have hallmarks that can be traced through them. The first is the identification of unpopular, minority or weak groups. The second is the vilification of those groups as being unworthy and undeserving. The third is the removal from those groups, and only those groups, of the protection and rights that they enjoy under the law. The fourth is the blaming of those groups themselves for the removal of those rights, and, often, the vilification of the civil liberties organisations that attempt to protect them.
	So as we embark on this road, it is worth reflecting—as I hope the Home Secretary will—that we are entering dangerous territory and a realm in which we have bad friends. I hope that he will reflect that if we put into effect measures that give the appearance of a repressive and oppressive state, we are but a short step away from becoming a repressive and oppressive state. For my part, I do not accept in any way the apologia that by imposing these strictures and eroding these civil liberties, we will in some way head off the extreme right by taking its ground and distilling away its support. I do not believe that for one minute; nor is there any historical context in which that has proved the truth. The fact is that moving down that road offers the extreme right encouragement and support, and, ultimately, success.

Douglas Hogg: One of the most powerful criticisms of the Americans' approach to the detainees at Guantanamo Bay is that they do not have a right of appeal outside the military system. That is extraordinarily like what the Home Secretary is proposing—that there should be no external appeal against a decision of the tribunal.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I concur with that point.
	Of course, this is not a statistical matter—it is the principle that is all-important—but it is worth reflecting that in 2002, the judicial review process threw back 260 cases as being not simply wrong, but so wrong that they were wholly and completely unsupportable. It is reasonable to suppose that if half those cases involved families, 200 to 300 children were involved in those decisions. Those are the people who will now have no right of appeal. They will face the agonising choice of going into impoverishment and care or going back to the country in which they were persecuted. For those reasons, it will be a pleasure for me to support the reasoned amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre. I very much hope that many of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members will be able to do likewise.

John Randall: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). He always makes a lot of sense to me—but perhaps that says more about me than about him.
	My constituents increasingly raise asylum and immigration issues with me, so I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Bill. We have heard some very good speeches. I was particularly pleased to hear the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and of the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham).
	The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) said that when dealing with such matters, we must all be aware of the urban myths that are around. We probably all know them. Locally in Hillingdon we have the housing myth, which I am sure is also found in many other areas. It says that the fact that no one can get a house is somehow all the fault of asylum seekers. Another story that I have increasingly heard is that everyone seems to know a neighbour or a friend who has sold a car which was paid for with a cheque from social services or the benefit agencies, but when one asks for more details, somehow they disappear into the ether. Not so long ago I even heard from someone who was very worried because they had heard that the top floor of Hillingdon hospital had been closed down to house asylum seekers. Those may seem amusing stories, but they spread around and cause more and more concern, which is one reason why the subject of immigration and asylum is so often raised.
	The people who are concerned are not racists and bigots, although those do of course exist. Similarly, those who genuinely raise the rights of asylum seekers are living in the real world, although the facts are sometimes uncomfortable for people. I dare say that next week at many a Christmas day service, sermons will be given about asylum seekers, which will lead to much harrumphing, with people saying that the vicar should have said a bit more about Christmas. But it is a good thing for us to be reminded of such cases.
	We must also always be reminded that although we refer to groups, we are talking about individuals. For example, one of my constituents is always telling me that immigration and asylum seeking are not being dealt with properly in Parliament and saying, "It's about time you lot woke up." However, he knocked on my window at home late one evening to ask me to do something to prevent a Kosovan of his acquaintance from being deported. When we are dealing with individuals, it is a different matter.
	There is a problem, as everyone acknowledges. We have to resolve certain problems, which cannot be done in this Bill. I have just mentioned housing. If there were not a housing problem, the urban myths would not exist. The high level of council tax is raising problems in my borough because, as the hon. and learned Member for Medway said, someone is getting blamed for it. There is an issue, which I am taking up with the Minister, of a recent court judgment about unaccompanied asylum-seeking children over 18, which will have a considerable financial effect on the borough. We have asked for a meeting and I am sure that if she has not agreed to it, she is in the process of doing so. It worries me when people I know, such as general practitioners or head teachers, talk about "the Heathrow effect". We know what they are talking about when they say it. It is genuine, and it is upsetting for community relations within the borough.
	To return to the Bill, I wholly agree with some measures. We know how many passports and documents turn up in bins at Heathrow airport, and we have to deal with that problem.
	The quality of decision making has been mentioned. I am not sure exactly how decisions are taken, but I suspect that some people have to work for long stints. Inevitably, they will get jaded. Security officers at airports have only a limited time to deal with each case; otherwise, they are not doing their job properly. Some of the people taking the decisions might be bombarded by a whole load of applications and it is easy to get rather blasé about it all. I do not know whether anything is being done about that. The quality of advice given by some legal practices can also be dubious. The lawyers often seem to take the money and then send the applicants along to our surgeries.
	Another problem is the endless set of appeals. We MPs may be just as guilty, in that when someone complains at our surgeries, we often put the matter to a Minister again and again. As the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) said, we have the right to raise such matters, though we do not judge them. The time lag is the real problem.
	Clause 10 does concern me and I hope that the Government will listen to what is said about it. We should all be aware of a potential slippery slope. Speeding up the process sounds appealing—although that may be the wrong word to use in this case—but we must be careful.
	I waver a little on clause 7. When I first heard about it in the media, I was, like many others, appalled. Perhaps I am too generous spirited, but I believe the Home Secretary and the Minister when I hear them say on the "Today" programme that their intentions are entirely honourable. However, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) made the important point that even those who are not genuine asylum seekers—in the sense that their cases are not accepted—are still very desperate people.
	Many unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who end up in the borough of Hillingdon are not orphans; people may have spent a lot of money sending them here on an aeroplane. We may find it incredible that people could send their children away, but people in desperate circumstances do precisely that. I can therefore quite understand people going along with being deported, but wanting to leave their children behind. We need to take that into account.
	It is difficult for us to appreciate how desperate some of these people are. My experience is mainly drawn from the people who come to my surgery. Some are, shall we say, making the system work for them, but there are some heart-rending cases. I have only limited experience of seeing refugees abroad, but I did see internally displaced people in Serbia, being trucked out of Kosovo. I have seen the conditions that they live in and I can understand why they might want to go to another country. For us, it is almost inconceivable that we should ever want to leave our country, but I can understand why people in different circumstances might want to leave theirs.
	Some of the Bill's other provisions, I wish well. I am not sure about electronic monitoring, but it sounds all right and I am prepared to be persuaded that the technology works. Similarly, this morning the Home Secretary was talking about ID cards as a means of protecting our borders. Yes, we need some controls, but I am not sure that ID cards are the answer, although I am prepared to listen. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) made some interesting and valid points in relation to clause 20, which I hope the Home Office will examine. I have Brunel university in my constituency, and many of the things that my hon. Friend said would apply equally there.
	If I do not vote for the reasoned amendment, it will not be because I do not have a great deal of sympathy with it. However, I think at this stage that there is enough in the Bill to let it run its course. My hon. Friends and Labour Members will do their job in Committee, and when the Bill comes back for Report and Third Reading, we will have another look. If it has not been improved in the areas I have mentioned, we may have to vote against it.

Jeremy Corbyn: I was going to say that I agree with everything the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) said. Well, I do, except for the last bit. I think that the Bill needs to be opposed because of its serious deficiencies.
	I shall be brief so that others might have a chance to speak. I ask myself why we are here again, and then I look at the headlines in the Daily Express two days ago—some spurious stuff about every asylum seeker receiving £16,000 a year. That is not my experience of talking to the large number of asylum seekers in my constituency, many of whom are desperate to work and to contribute to society and feel angry that they are often denied that right. As the Home Secretary said, there are in London some 30,000 asylum seekers who moved to London after having been deposited in other parts of the country by the National Asylum Support Service and who are living here without any housing support. They have only income support, which is of an extremely limited nature, and they live on the grace and favour of people in their community. We should think for a moment of those 30,000 people spread throughout London's boroughs—an average of 1,000 per borough—living in grossly overcrowded accommodation, the children at risk of underachieving in school because of that degree of overcrowding, the parents enduring considerable hardship, and other members of the community going through hardship to support them because of the degree of racism and harassment of asylum seekers that persists in many parts of the country and from which London is not immune.
	Those who sanctimoniously write the newspaper headlines making abusive comments about asylum seekers should ask themselves whether they do not in part encourage the racist attacks against asylum seekers and the killings of asylum seekers that have occurred in several parts of the country in the past two years. We all have a duty and a responsibility to be careful in what we say and how we say it. We must remember that a remark of ours that is thought to be an expression of a prejudice becomes something very nasty when it gets into the hands of a group of racist thugs on a Saturday night on a street anywhere in the country. The people who cop it are those who thought that they had left a place of danger and desperation. We should not be so self-satisfied about racial tolerance in our society, because a high degree of racism remains and the people who suffer are those who thought they had got away from that type of danger.
	We should ask ourselves why so many people are trying to seek asylum now. Look at the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Congo, where some 3 million people have died. Look at the instability and disruption in Somalia and in so many other places around the world. Although I do not pretend, claim or assert that this country is responsible for all those conflicts, I do believe that collectively the European Union and north American contributions to the world arms trade, to the search for and the extraction of minerals and to the trade policies followed around the world lead to instability and to large numbers of people seeking a place of safety—asylum—somewhere else. Is the history of the 20th and 21st centuries to be written in memory of the people who have died in rusting hulks trying to cross the Mediterranean to gain a place of safety in Europe? Economic, political and social migrants have all been treated with a brutality that is seen as typical of the uncaring, arrogant and aggressive attitude that rich countries take towards the victims of poverty elsewhere in the world.
	I do not pretend that we can solve all the problems, but we must maintain a sense of reality. We must understand what it is like to face the ultimate disruption of having to leave one's country, home and society because they are no longer safe.

Diane Abbott: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should remind ourselves that 70 per cent. of asylum seekers stay in their own regions, and that only 30 per cent. find their way to the west?

Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The number of asylum seekers turning up in Europe and north America is quite small, whereas the numbers that try to survive in India, Jordan, Mexico and many other much poorer societies around the world are huge. Anyone who has visited a refugee camp that has existed for many years will be aware of the misery, hardship and sense of bitterness that exist there, and will have some understanding of the problem.
	In common with other hon. Members, I have very strong objections to parts of the Bill. I object to the atmosphere in which it has been introduced, and to the assertions that have been made about it. However, my main objections are to clauses 7 and 10.
	Clause 7 proposes that we should punish children for decisions made by their parents. Those decisions may be irrational ones, arrived at after a series of legal judgments, or as a result of the very poor level of representation available to families in the first place. The idea is that putting children into care for those reasons will serve as a deterrent, but I agree with what the hon. Member for Uxbridge said. It is incomprehensible that anyone living in a relatively affluent society in western Europe should knowingly put children at risk. Yet what decisions would any of us make if we were faced with the grim alternatives that some asylum seekers face? Those alternatives include the possibility—or grave danger—that children might be inducted into a child army, or that they might die because of malnutrition or serious health problems. We need to think more deeply and carefully about that.
	I also have serious and strong reservations about clause 10, the problems with which have been well aired in the debate by other hon. Members. If it goes through, the Bill will establish a tribunal, and that tribunal will appoint a president. The Government are very fond of calling people "tsars". Mostly, the title is ridiculous, but in this case it would be ideal. As I understand it, the tribunal president will have complete power over the decisions that are made. The president will decide whether a decision should be reviewed—and whether his or her actions should be reviewed by a higher court.
	It would take a particularly saintly person, as tribunal president, to refer himself or herself to a higher court to be judicially reviewed for any capricious decision that might have been made. Such a person may be available: my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) could be an excellent candidate, but I doubt that his name is in the frame at the Home Office just now. I suspect that the president will be someone who is far more pliant in respect of the existing system.
	We need to think very seriously about this matter. We are elected Members of Parliament, and we are proud of our judicial system's independence from political interference. We are proud, too, that people who go to court know that their cases will be heard fairly—we hope—and that they will be represented independently and properly—we hope. We are also proud that in such cases there will be a similarity in the standards of decision making that can be reviewed by a higher court through the judicial review process. The Bill will set up something totally outwith anything that we have had in this society in living memory—indeed, for several hundred years. We are creating a dangerous precedent.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend has spoken with passion in every immigration debate in the House for the past 16 years. Does he agree that another reason why we should pause before accepting clause 10 is the restructuring of our judiciary? Given that it has been announced that the role of Lord Chancellor will be abolished and a new committee set up, should we not take the changes as a package and pause to think carefully about the provision?

Jeremy Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes a sensible suggestion. If we are to establish a new supreme court and alter the ultimate structure of the legal system by changing the office of Lord Chancellor, ideally we would not go ahead with the clause but would fit the provisions in elsewhere.
	I do not intend my comments to be interpreted as scaremongering. However, we have legislated to allow the Home Secretary to imprison foreign nationals indefinitely on the grounds that they might be terrorists, without giving them access to normal justice. If we allow asylum seekers to be tried by a tribunal that is outwith any normal justice, what will be next? Will we have special tribunals to try special categories of crime to which normal judicial rules and habeas corpus will not apply, and in relation to which judicial review will be impossible? The provision represents a dangerous road to go down, and I hope that the Minister recognises that many of us have genuine concerns about it.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), I have a crowded inner-city constituency that has all sorts of problems and social tensions and contains many asylum seekers. The asylum seekers whom I meet have often been through horrific and terrible experiences. They want better for their children—we all want that; it is a normal human reaction—but above all they want to contribute to our society. There is great joy in seeing asylum seekers who have been through human rights, literacy and computer courses and have got to university and qualified. Such people have made, make and will always make a contribution to our society. Surely hon. Members should applaud and welcome that rather than allowing the popular press to be so beastly to asylum seekers and playing up to their game by using language such as that in the Bill, and by implementing its measures. I hope that the House will oppose the Bill and support the reasoned amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). If the Bill receives its Second Reading, as I expect it will, I hope that clauses 7 and 10, at least, will be emphatically removed in Committee or by another place.

Jenny Tonge: My bedtime reading over recent weeks has been "Every Child Matters", which is a good White Paper that the Government published several months ago. But it would appear from the Bill's provisions and from what we have heard in the debate that every child matters except for the children of asylum seekers.
	The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) organised a good meeting in the House last week during which we heard about conditions in detention centres. That was a bit of an eye opener for me, and given that detention centres are mentioned in the Bill, I thought I would use this opportunity to ask the Minister to address the problems. It is unclear why people—especially families with children—go into the detention centres and at what stage of the process that happens. The original intention for people to go into such centres as a result of a court order seems to be have been thrown out of the window, because that no longer happens. No one knows who decides the length of time for which people stay in the centres.
	Inspections carried out by Her Majesty's inspectorate of prisons show that people in the centres often have no privacy and that their rooms have no locks. They are not allowed access outside and their children receive no proper health care or education. Those facts are not rumour or anecdote: they come from an official inspection. At last week's meeting, it was questioned whether the Government are upholding the human rights of families and children who are in detention centres. The situation is serious and scandalous, so I hope that the Minister will address it in her response and tell us what the Government will do about it.
	A lot has been said about clause 7. I merely repeat that families with children are usually the most genuine asylum seekers. Who would haul their children halfway across the world to a country where they know few people and do not speak the language, when they have no money and no means of finding work, if they were not in genuine fear of persecution? I cannot believe that people would do that.
	On the other side of the coin, the Government say that people would rather leave this country and take their children with them than stay without benefits. If I were in their position, knowing the treatment I would get when I returned to my country of origin, I would probably prefer to leave my children in care and take the risk. At least I would know that they would be safe. Clause 7 is appalling.

Kelvin Hopkins: Does the hon. Lady agree that a good example of her point is offered by the "kinder transport" system that existed before the second world war, when families put their children on a train and never saw them again.

Jenny Tonge: Absolutely. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre referred to the report from the British Association of Social Workers, which made that very point: we thought that sort of thing had stopped during and just before the second world war. We thought that we would no longer have to take children away from families who would never see them again. Are we really going to introduce that practice—however unintentionally—in the 21st century? I hope not.
	The hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) made a pertinent intervention to ask who assessed how safe it was for people to go back to their country of origin. On a similar point, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration said that if people returned to their country of origin they would go with support. I shall tell the House briefly of one such experience.
	A year ago I travelled to Kosovo with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) to visit a family who had recently returned there. The family had come to the UK at the height of the war in Kosovo and found refuge in Harrogate. While they waited for a decision about whether they could stay in Britain, they settled in the town; the man found a job as a waiter, his wife had a second baby and they were accepted by the community. They had a quality of life that they had never experienced before.
	The final decision on their application was that they were refused asylum and told to get out. When all the due processes had been followed, all the charities and churches in the area, my hon. Friend and many others tried to stop the family's removal. That little family, with two small children—a toddler and a baby—were happily established, but they were taken from their house at a few minutes' notice, put on a plane and sent back to Kosovo. They were met, taken by car out into the countryside and dropped within a mile of their original village and given Euro10—only Euro10.
	Is that the support to which the Minister referred? Is that how we treat people who have had among the worst experiences in the world? I hope that the Minister will tell me that such things will not happen again as a result of the Bill.
	Worse was to come for that family. The man was persecuted by the Kosovo Liberation Army; he was seen as a collaborator because he had worked in a Serb factory and wanted to keep his job. He has not lived with his family since their return. The last we heard was that nobody knew where he was; he moves from safe house to safe house, trying to escape persecution. Is that the support that we give these unfortunate people? Why did the original process take so long, with the result that the family were settled before they had to be turned out of the country? As the hon. Member for Islington, North asked, who checks that the country of origin is safe? Who says that a person will be all right when they get back? Let us hope that more provision will be made in future for returnees than Euro10.
	In just over a week's time we shall be celebrating the birth of a child to the most famous refugee family in history. I am appalled and ashamed of what the Government are doing in my name to some of the most vulnerable people on earth.

Julie Morgan: I am concerned about clause 10, especially the loss of judicial review, but my greatest concern is clause 7, to which, given its potential impact on families and children, I shall address my remarks.
	Ministers have said that they do not think that many, or any, children will be affected by the clause and end up going into care. However, if even one child is so affected, the Bill should not go ahead. The Government have not been able to give a figure for the number of children who could be affected. I tried to obtain the figure for Wales, which has far fewer asylum seekers than the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn). The Cardiff and District asylum network estimates that 511 families are seeking asylum in Wales, and that 576 children could be affected by this legislation: 576 children are likely to end up in families who have been refused asylum and had their benefits removed.

Tony McWalter: Does my hon. Friend accept that the standard way of dealing with the issue is forcible removal? That is made clear both in current legislation and in the Minister's remarks to the Select Committee. Under current arrangements, families would stay together, albeit that they would have a 5 am call by the police.

Julie Morgan: I cannot accept that treating asylum seekers' children differently from any other children can be acceptable.
	There are already problems with failed asylum seekers who are destitute and are single. There are delays in arranging for failed asylum seekers to return to their countries of origin, as a result of which they are existing without support. There are those who are deemed unable to return to their countries because of circumstances in those countries: Zimbabwe and Somalia have been mentioned, for example.
	In such circumstances, people can apply for hard case support, but that is not available in Wales. People can apply in Wales, but there is no accommodation to which they can go. I was told this morning of a stateless man in Cardiff who has been refused asylum. He has no money and has nowhere to return to. The situation will become more difficult when more families are put in the same position.
	Organisations in Wales are already concerned about the numbers of those who will be made homeless after failed claims. I know that the figures are very small compared with those in constituencies elsewhere, but in Cardiff, 81 people have been recorded this year as being evicted from National Asylum Support Service accommodation and many more have been evicted from private accommodation. The proposed legislation is likely to make the situation worse.
	There is already concern about illegal employment and about people being able to return to their own countries. Resources are also likely to be under much pressure. The Association of Directors of Social Services has already been mentioned today, and it has said that
	"if put into effect the proposals would put unacceptable pressures on what are already overstretched resources".
	There are fears that women will seek refuge in women's aid hostels, even if they are not fleeing domestic violence, because they do not have anywhere else to go. In Cardiff, the black women's refuge provided by BAWSO—the Black Association of Women Step Out—is already under strain providing two places for women and their families without any recourse to public funds. Other women's aid hostels in Wales do not give places to women in that position because they lose the rent for the rooms and have to pay for food and clothes for the destitute families. The trauma of having to move those women and families on is almost too difficult for them to cope with. BAWSO receives 99 per cent. of its funding from public bodies, but has to raise money for the two families in the refuge without recourse to public funds. There is a queue of women waiting to get into the hostel. BAWSO greatly fears that the legislation will drive many women to try to get into a hostel such as the one that it provides. As it has no recourse to public funds for such families, its position will become much more difficult.
	The needs of children should always be put first. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), before I became an MP I was a social worker, and worked for the local authority and for Barnado's. We made every possible effort to prevent children from going into care, and always worked both to maintain the family and in the best interests of the child. The Bill contravenes a child-centred service, and possibly contravenes the UN convention on the rights of the child, particularly article 3 on the best interests of the child, and article 9 on separation from parents.
	As I mentioned in an intervention, Wales has a Children's Commissioner, who is required by the Welsh Assembly to have regard to the UN convention on the rights of the child. The commissioner's functions need to be seen in the context of the convention. He is a champion for children in Wales, and I am sure that he will be a champion for the children of failed asylum seekers. As I have already said, the office of the Children's Commissioner for Wales has expressed concern about the Bill. It believes, as many Members have said, that every single child matters. Their rights and welfare, rather than the circumstances that have led to their being in the country, are important. The child impact statement by the National Children's Bureau, prepared for the all-party group on children, cites the recommendation made by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child in October 2002 that the state should ensure
	"that refugee and asylum-seeker children have access to basic services, such as education and health, and that there is no discrimination in benefit entitlements for asylum-seeking families which could affect children".
	The proposals in the Bill, however, clearly affect children.
	The NCB asks how we can determine whether someone has taken reasonable steps to prepare to leave. How do we determine whether someone is in a position to leave? What about women who are pregnant, and what is the position when there is illness in the family? It is important that those issues are examined in much more depth. The NCB believes that families will go underground or may even decide, as has been mentioned today, that it is in their children's best interests to go into care. We cannot criticise people for making that decision, because many Members have said in forceful terms that we cannot appreciate the desperation of people who want to do the best for their children, but have a different idea about what that entails from us. We cannot criticise their decisions, but we should not drive them into making them.
	The UK's reservation about article 22 of the UN convention on the rights of the child has been criticised by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child.
	The UNCRC states:
	"We recommend that the Government demonstrate its commitment to the equal treatment of all children by withdrawing its reservation relating to immigration and nationality."
	That is the key issue. All children should be treated equally, and we are not treating asylum seekers' children equally. Failed asylum seekers' children should be treated the same as every other child in this country. A child is a child, and I do not see how we can have different provisions for different children. We breached that principle before this debate, when we decided that asylum seekers' children would not be able to go to local authority schools, but should be educated in the accommodation centres that have not yet been built. That was a bad decision, under which all children are not treated equally.
	The Bill goes even further and may bring about circumstances in which children could be physically and emotionally harmed. I hope the Government will reconsider the measure, especially clause 7, which could be damaging and divisive. Many people in Wales have lobbied me about the measure. They feel that clause 7, in particular, threatens social cohesion and all the efforts that are being made to build a society that is diverse and in which we value people for their individual worth. Through legislation such as this, we are moving away from our concept of such a society.
	I appeal to the Government to look again at the Bill and to think about why many of us came into politics. All of us on the Labour Benches came into politics to look after the interests of children—not just children indigenous to this country, but all children. I shall be pleased to support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre.

Humfrey Malins: With the leave of the House, and in the continued absence through illness of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis), I shall say a few words to conclude the debate on behalf of the Opposition.
	The Government are short of friends on their own Benches. I have listened throughout the afternoon to speech after speech from Labour Members criticising the Bill, much of that criticism coming from those who have experience of the asylum system, such as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). They and others who know a little about asylum find the Bill illiberal and in many ways unfair. We have heard words such as "insidious" and "repugnant", and the Home Secretary will go away from the debate in the knowledge that he has little support on his own Benches for the measures that he is trying to put through the House tonight.
	It is such a pity. If the Government had consulted at greater length and spoken to those who know something about the system and about how asylum works, it is entirely possible that a better Bill could have been brought to us. I shall confine my remarks to observations on comments made by hon. Friends, but I shall not let the occasion pass without thanking the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, who is not in his place, not only for producing a report so quickly, but for expressing in it some of the concerns that we all understand.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) spoke of the many people who have no confidence in the Government's asylum policy. He was rightly critical of the Government's conflicting signals on the issue of taking asylum seekers' children into care and, reflecting the enormous amount of work that he has done in his constituency on these matters in the past couple of years, he reinforced the view that there is next to no support in his constituency for the siting of an accommodation centre in a rural area. He has certainly fought well on behalf of those whom he represents.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) spoke with knowledge and experience of schools and universities on the vexed question of clause 20, rightly referring to the lack of consultation with educational establishments and other interested parties. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) who referred to top-up fees or charges, and we shall have to consider that issue very carefully in Committee.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), in a powerful speech, made the very true point that we should, in this House and elsewhere, be entitled to debate levels of immigration in a rational way, without being tagged as racist for so doing. Not unnaturally, given his constituency, he referred to the need for much more effective coastal controls.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who has some experience of these matters through his constituency interest, made the point that asylum seekers must not be demonised. He was one of many speakers throughout the House today who rightly expressed concern at the potential cut in appeal rights to the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords.
	The debate has been interesting, and I look forward to serving on the Committee. If I may say so to the Government Whips, I am sure that they will select to serve on the Committee many of the hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon, in order to obtain a balanced Committee and to ensure that the improvements to the Bill that we all want to see are made.

David Heath: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Humfrey Malins: Only for a second, but I will.

David Heath: I will take only a second; I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Having heard his words in opening and in summing up the debate, and the words of his colleagues during the debate, I would find it impossible to reconcile the views expressed with a decision on the part of the Conservative Opposition to do anything other than to oppose the Bill tonight. That would not be the act of a rational Opposition.

Humfrey Malins: I have served with the hon. Gentleman on Committees before and he knows that in Committee we will table amendments to improve the contentious parts of the Bill, and we will be speak to them and vote on them. I say now to the Home Secretary that clause 2, which will criminalise many innocent people, clause 7, which deals with the withdrawal of support, and clause 10, which is perhaps the most contentious and which cuts down so much on the appeals that can be made, will all be looked at carefully by us in Committee and very carefully in another place.
	The Bill must be improved in Committee. It sets out to achieve a better and more streamlined system, but in its present form it will not do that properly. It could achieve that if it is properly amended in Committee. If we can make progress in Committee on those contentious issues and others, the Home Secretary will have our support. If not, and judging by the mood of the House and of many outside, when the Bill comes back on Report and Third Reading, he will not have it.

Beverley Hughes: We have had an energetic and considered debate, and I am grateful for the contributions from Members of the House on what is always—rightly always—a difficult, complex and emotive set of issues.
	The Bill sets out our third planned phase of reforms to the asylum and immigration system and builds deliberately on the action that we took in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Though I say it myself, the Government have made dramatic progress in reducing claims by half, reducing the backlog to an all-time 10-year low, removing record numbers of failed asylum seekers and processing 80 per cent. of more recent claims in two months. I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) for recognising that. The Bill represents the next essential stage in completely transforming and reconstructing the asylum system. I agree with Members on both sides of the House who said that operational efficiency, accuracy and consistency are vital—that is why we have given the Bill such a high priority and will continue to do so.
	Inevitably, the debate has focused on asylum, but it is important, not least for some Labour Members, to put our asylum reforms in the context of our wider policy on migration. There is a clear dividing line here. Conservative Members—we heard a little of this refrain in the contribution of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner)—want to stem all immigration into this country. By contrast, this Government's progressive policy is to welcome migrants where that helps our economy and to give opportunities to people from less developed countries. We are committed to finding better ways of integrating refugees here and helping genuine refugees worldwide. That includes our work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to identify refugees abroad and to bring them directly into settlement in the UK. Those are the forgotten people—the refugees who can never make it to the west in the back of a lorry because they cannot afford the traffickers who fuel that movement, and who languish instead in camps in poor countries across the world. Our commitment lies in managed legal migration and in more help for refugees.
	We cannot, however, expect to make the case for managed legal migration and more help for refugees unless we deal with the misuse of the asylum system and return it to the purpose for which it was intended—the protection of people fleeing persecution, not the provision of a route into settlement for those seeking a better life—understandable though that is. I never speak negatively about asylum seekers, and neither do my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary or my colleagues, but that is not the purpose of the asylum system. If we are to have a system that makes fair decisions, regulates the process and returns asylum to its proper purpose, we must enforce the outcomes of those decisions fairly and properly.

Sally Keeble: Does my hon. Friend agree that a good deal of illegal entry into this country and abuse of the system has been carried out by traffickers who have deliberately brought people into the country for benefits scams, servitude and other purposes, and that the Bill will help to clamp down on that abuse?

Beverley Hughes: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We have added to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which penalises trafficking for sexual exploitation, by including in the Bill a measure that criminalises trafficking for non-sexual exploitation, domestic slavery, organ harvesting and labour exploitation. I am very much committed to that.
	I have to say that I occasionally wondered in the course of the debate in whose interests some Members were primarily speaking, and where the views of their constituents came into play. It is vital that the public, who are our constituents, have confidence in the asylum and immigration system. We are introducing these measures because it is important to build that confidence. It is an ongoing process, however—we have to respond quickly and robustly to global migration trends and to the way in which organised criminals constantly try to find ways around the controls that we put in place. People have a right to know that the Government and Parliament are addressing their genuine concerns about the misuse of the process—otherwise, they will look beyond the established parties in this Chamber to the extremist policies offered by the British National party and others. That has already happened in Europe, and we cannot and will not allow it to happen here.
	Public confidence in the system is crucial for the successful integration of refugees and to maintain cohesion in our communities in towns and cities throughout the country. We have a proud tradition of welcoming people; we are proud of modern Britain's ethnically rich and diverse society. We must not allow that to be soured by traffickers or people who misuse the system, for whatever understandable reasons.
	We have made radical improvements to the controls, but no one can seriously say that nothing more can be done. The Bill shows that we are determined to take action further to improve our border controls, ensure that the systems continue to fulfil the purposes of enabling legal movement, encouraging legal migration and honouring our international obligations to offer protection to those in genuine need.
	I shall try to respond to some of the specific points that hon. Members made. I welcome the response of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) made it clear that the Committee has not asked for any of the provisions to be withdrawn. He especially mentioned the figure of 16,000. He knows from his experience as a Minister that when a Committee Chairman asks Ministers for information, we have to provide it. That specific information was already in the public domain because we made it clear when we announced the ILR—indefinite leave to remain— exercise. Would that we could control some newspaper headlines, but I fear that we cannot.
	The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) mentioned charging. We are about to embark on a full consultation on the first months of implementation of the current charging mechanism. All the issues that he raised will be open for people to comment on further. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made clear, the provision on charging is only an enabling power. Any proposals will be made through the secondary process and be subject to full consultation.
	Hon. Members talked mainly about clauses 7 and 10. Clause 10 covers the proposals to create a single tier for appeals. Again, I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar that it is vital to have a proper, fair judicial system that is independent of the Home Office and the initial decision that takes place there. However, I disagree with her view and that of most of my hon. Friends who spoke on the matter that the Bill will not achieve that. It is important, for all the reasons that hon. Members mentioned—for example, the need to return people quickly when their claims fail—that we do not allow appeal after appeal. That is why we propose a single tier and a single body. We shall outline the proposal's operation in greater detail in Committee, and I hope that we can reassure hon. Members about some of their concerns.

John Burnett: Will the Minister give way?

Beverley Hughes: I shall not take an intervention because the hon. Gentleman has heard hardly any of the debate. I am happy to take interventions from people who have been present.
	A panel of three will hear complex cases. There will be a facility for either party to apply for review. A senior judge will undertake that review and can uphold, overturn or replace the decision or instruct a rehearing. The president can take novel and complex issues of law to the Court of Appeal. I fail to understand how that is tantamount to what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), and the hon. Members for Woking (Mr. Malins) and for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) described as removal of judicial oversight. It is not.

Tony McWalter: As part of the process, will the published minutes of meetings be made available to Members of Parliament who might take an interest in such cases, even if they are not placed in the public domain?

Beverley Hughes: It is standard practice under the current mechanisms. Although it is a matter for the Department for Constitutional Affairs, I do not understand why it cannot be continued for adjudicators, and currently tribunal adjudicators, so that they produce a report that summarises their conclusions and the reasons for them. I imagine that that will happen.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend has correctly said that progress has been made at the immigration and nationality directorate, but is she seriously suggesting that the detail of how the appeal system will operate has not yet been worked out? Are we going to remove a whole tier of the appeal system without the Government having worked out the details?

Beverley Hughes: No, my hon. Friend must have misheard me, or perhaps he was not listening for a moment, because I said that there would be more time in Committee for Ministers to explain the detail, which has been fully worked out. Indeed, we have involved the judiciary in that process, as he would expect.
	Hon. Members have identified the quality of decision making at both stages, the initial decision and the appeal, and I agree that that is crucial—[Interruption.] I shall finish my point if hon. Members will allow me to. That issue is critical, which is why we have been working on it and will continue to work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to take the matter further.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Will the Minister be good enough to point to the part of the Bill, which I might well have missed, in which the appeal procedure—albeit within the tribunal—is set out, including the senior judge, and in which it is set out how the senior judge is appointed?

Beverley Hughes: I should be happy to set out those details in Committee. I am not prepared to spend time in a Second Reading debate on a matter of detail for the Committee.
	I acknowledge the concern of the many hon. Members who raised the issue of clause 7; I shall not take up time naming them all, because it involved nearly everybody. This is a difficult issue, and I repeat that our intention is not to put children into care as a result of this measure, contrary to the deliberate misinformation put out by some newspapers—[Interruption.] I would ask hon. Members to consider this point. We must face this difficult question—and it is a question for every Member of the House. When families have come to the end of the process and been refused, should we carry on housing them and paying them ad infinitum if they refuse to go home or to co-operate with the arrangements regarding re-documentation? That cannot be right.

Hilton Dawson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Beverley Hughes: No, I will not.
	Most of our constituents would expect us to conclude that people must take responsibility for their position, and that parents must be responsible for their children. I understand the concerns—

Hilton Dawson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Beverley Hughes: I have 15 minutes in which to respond to every Member. My hon. Friend has had 12 minutes for his own speech. I need to come to my conclusion.
	The details of the way in which the process will operate are fundamentally important, and we shall articulate those details in Committee. The process will involve an interview and up to four letters explaining exactly what will happen, so that people will be under no illusions.
	The Bill is the next essential stage in our programme of reforms to the asylum and immigration system, and it responds to the continuing and increasingly sophisticated abuses of that system. It also builds on the progress that we have already made. Genuine refugees have nothing to fear from the measures in the Bill. We are getting tougher on traffickers and on those seeking to play the system, to ensure that the public have confidence in that system. In turn, that will ensure that genuine refugees and legal migrants can continue to be welcomed here and valued for the important contribution that they make to life in the United Kingdom.
	I recognise that this is a difficult issue, and we need to balance the rights and responsibilities of all those concerned in the process, including asylum seekers. In case my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) is under the illusion that I do not see any asylum seekers, I must tell her that I do, at every advice surgery. I am therefore putting forward these proposals with a full knowledge of the interests of both constituents and asylum seekers. The Bill is in the interests of our positive approach to immigration, of refugees worldwide, of the communities in Britain and, above all, of our constituents—the people whom we represent—who rightly expect us to have a fair system.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 78, Noes 287.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—
	The House divided: Ayes 412, Noes 72.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read a Second time.

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION (TREATMENT OF CLAIMANTS, ETC.) BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003 (Programming of Bills)],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill:
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	Proceedings in Standing Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 27th January 2004.
	3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	Programming Committee
	6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Programming of proceedings
	7. All proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 133.

Question accordingly agreed to.

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION (TREATMENT OF CLAIMANTS, ETC.) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
	(1) expenditure of a Minister of the Crown in connection with the Act, and
	(2) any increase attributable to the Act in sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under another enactment.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.
	ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION (TREATMENT OF CLAIMANTS, ETC.) BILL [WAYS AND MEANS]
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees in relation to applications and processes under the Immigration Acts.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.
	DELEGATED LEGISLATION
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Justice

That the draft Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 (Amendment of section 46(1) and paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 8) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 27th November, be approved.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITIONS
	 — 
	Hockley Post Office

Mark Francois: I wish to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Hockley, Essex, in protest at the proposed closure of the post office at Apex Corner in my constituency.The local residents, led by their councillors, Keith Hudson and Colin and Liv Hungate, are rightly concerned about the possible loss of that important facility, not least as the proposed alternative office is nearly a mile away, over uneven ground, and there is no direct bus route.
	Accordingly the petition states:
	To the House of Commons:
	The Petition of the Residents of Hockley, Essex
	Declares that the Petitioners are worried by the proposed closure of the post office at Apex Corner in Hockley, as the residents feel there is a need for such a local facility, particularly in an area with a significant number of elderly residents.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons takes heed of their concerns and calls upon the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to help keep this important post office open.
	And the Petitioners remain etc.
	To lie upon the Table.

Greenfield Development

John Greenway: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of more than 800 of my constituents who are residents of Osbaldwick, a rural village on the outskirts of York.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons
	The Petition of the Residents of Osbaldwick, York
	Declares that the proposed development by the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust of green field land at Metcalfe Lane, Osbaldwick, originally part of the Greater York draft green belt, and owned by the City of York Council, will have an adverse impact on the surrounding area and is unacceptable in its present form because the Trust together with the City of York Council have failed to provide for a proper independent new access road in their plans.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges that the Deputy Prime Minister as Secretary of State for Planning calls in the application and convenes a public enquiry in order that the planning application can be determined not by the City of York Council as owners of the land but by an independent planning inspector whose decision in regard to the application would command greater public confidence.
	And the petitioners remain.
	To lie upon the Table.

Children at Risk

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]

John Baron: First, I thank the Minister and the Home Office team for fielding the debate. I am conscious that I am keeping the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues away from the office Christmas party.
	The Minister will be aware of the issue that I wish to raise with him, as we have corresponded on the matter. I have recently spoken with his office and e-mailed a summary of the key points that I will be raising this evening in the hope that he will directly address the issues at hand.
	My concern centres around the fact that some people on the sex offenders register, particularly those who have been cautioned rather than convicted, are able to offer themselves directly to the general public as home education tutors and to undertake one-to-one tuition without contravening any rules or regulations. What appears to compound the problem is that where tutors are not offering themselves through an agency but advertising directly to the public, parents have little or no ability to check their backgrounds independently of the tutor with any of the authorities.
	I am not suggesting for one moment that this is a wide-scale problem, but I believe that it is one of those situations which, should it go wrong, could go wrong in a big way. The issue was first brought to my attention by one of my local newspapers, the Evening Echo, which highlighted the case of a home tutor in south Essex who was still teaching despite having been caught with indecent images of children on his home computer. The individual was not charged but received a caution and was placed on the register for five years. Apparently he has continued to run his private education business through Yellow Pages and a website, and he is still not breaking any rules or laws.
	Since then, constituents have written to me about this issue and I have taken it up with the Home Office, the Department for Education and Skills, Essex police, Essex county council and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. The responses from the Home Office and the DFES have, in my view, not been satisfactory. That is why I have asked for this debate and for the Minister to answer a few questions. There appears to be a loophole in the law that needs to be plugged for the sake both of children and of vulnerable adults.
	Early written responses to my letters dated 8 September from both the Minister for School Standards and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins), dated 5 and 13 October respectively, outline the present position very clearly.
	The sex offenders' register has a specific purpose—it is an administrative measure intended to aid the police in the monitoring of sex offenders in the community. There is nothing barring someone on the register from a particular type of employment. When society in general tries to protect children and vulnerable adults, it is essentially done through three filters. There is the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, list 99 and the Protection of Children Act 1999 list. Under the first Act, as amended, people who commit offences against children can be made subject to a disqualification order. List 99 has a wider application, this being a list of people who have been barred or have been restricted from providing education or carrying out work that involves regular contact with children under the age of 18. The Protection of Children Act list also does its bit to monitor people who are considered unsuitable for work with children.
	In all such cases both the Under-Secretary of State and the Minister for School Standards have confirmed that it is an offence for a disqualified person to apply for, offer to do, accept or do any work with children. This is all very well and understood, but the answers from the Home Office and DFES did not address my central concern. What about individuals who are on the sex offenders register because they have been cautioned, perhaps for possessing indecent images, and are therefore not disqualified from undertaking home tutoring? The position of people convicted of an offence is relatively straightforward—a disqualification order can be applied for and obtained, if that is thought necessary. However, people who have simply been cautioned escape disqualification orders, despite the fact that they are on the register. When I put that to both Departments, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department eventually replied that the Home Office believes that the matters raised are the responsibility of the Department for Education and Skills, while the Minister for School Standards, in his letter dated 30 November, simply reiterated the contents of his previous letters. In my view, both failed to address adequately my central concern.
	My correspondence with Essex county council and Essex police was much more fruitful. Both believe that there is a loophole that needs to be closed. The police do everything in their power in their monitoring interviews to ensure that children and vulnerable adults are protected, but they accept that there are people on the register who are not barred from home tutoring. In addition, their intelligence-gathering activities are not subject to Home Office guidelines but are left to individual officers, which leads to variation in monitoring between police forces. Essex county council accepts that a loophole exists:
	"To date the DFES have not strengthened the statutory framework which remains with the LEA having a responsibility to monitor home education, but without the statutory requirements for parents to contact us. The proposal that you make is seen as long overdue, but this is a national and not a local issue and therefore the remedy lies with the Secretary of State."
	In addition, discussions with the NSPCC have confirmed its concern about the loophole. Work has been undertaken to address the matter in the past, but it remains concerned that not enough is being done. The police have additional powers to try to deal with the situation. For example, they have the power to issue a sex offender order to stop someone acting as a home tutor on a one-to-one basis, but as yet, to my knowledge, not one such order has been issued or used. The police also have the power to disclose to parents an offender's record if they think that it could prevent a crime from being committed. In both cases, good intelligence is essential, but can vary from one force to another. While people with cautions who are on the register and are undertaking home education are not breaking any laws, the measures that I have just mentioned are not fail-safe.
	Parents are limited in what they can do to check the background of prospective home tutors. That is particularly the case if a home tutor advertises his services without going through an agency. Parents wishing to make checks cannot gain access to, or check with, list 99, the Criminal Records Bureau or, indeed, the sex offenders register, although I accept that there are good reasons for the latter restriction. The general public cannot even obtain relevant information by going to the local education authority or county council. Indeed, LEAs have no formal or legitimised process to check on parents' behalf, and have no authority to do so. Even the most diligent parent can only rely at present on references supplied by the home tutor.
	In response to my inquiries, the Minister for School Standards suggested that parents could safeguard against appointing an unsuitable person by engaging a home tutor through a tuition agency. However, that does not address the fact that many home tutors advertise their services directly to parents without going through an agency. Many parents may, for example, believe that, having advertised in the Yellow Pages, the home tutor is credible and would have undergone various checks by the authorities, whoever they are. It is dangerous to assume that all parents are as aware of the various checks and balances as we are. Even if they are, their power to investigate is severely restricted. That assumption certainly underlies many of the responses from both the Home Office and the Department for Education and Skills.
	Changes are in the offing to make the CRB more helpful. For example, at present there is only a standard or an enhanced disclosure. Although such disclosures include spent and unspent convictions as well as those on list 99, they cannot be accessed by individuals such as parents or home tutors. After much delay, a basic disclosure will be available to individuals by the end of next year, as I understand it, but the information that it contains will be limited. For example, only current convictions will be included, and list 99 will be excluded. Theoretically, therefore, a home tutor who has served a sentence for previous convictions and has no unspent convictions at present would not show up under such a disclosure.
	More promising are the proposals for the establishment of vetting agencies, whereby individuals could get enhanced disclosures. I understand that that will be introduced in relation to disabled people by the middle of next year, with a facility available for those who work with children some time thereafter. I have been informed that such enhanced disclosures would, without question, include all individuals on the sex offenders register. However, with regard to both initiatives, the onus is on the parents to be aware of and to undertake the necessary checks. I hope that, particularly when the second initiative is introduced, the Government will do what they can through an advertising campaign and the like to make the public fully aware of the checks that are available. The checks will have little use if no one knows they exist.
	As to how we can plug the loophole, I ask the Minister to reconsider a number of suggestions. The first is a simple measure—to make it illegal for anyone placed on the sex offenders register for being cautioned in relation to children to undertake one-to-one home tuition with children or vulnerable adults. That would remain in force for as long as the said person was on the register.
	A further consideration would be to introduce a licensing scheme whereby all home tutors would need to register with a reputable body, perhaps the local education authority, in order to teach children. Essex county council believes that that is the right way forward. It states:
	"There is no statutory basis for a registration scheme. . . intervention by the Secretary of State for Education and the Home Secretary on this point would be more than welcome in order that we can be empowered to take action in appropriate cases."
	If taxi drivers can be registered, there is no earthly reason why home tutors should not also be licensed.
	The Minister's written response to me suggests that the Government have no plans to license home tutors, however, and goes on to repeat that parents have the option of appointing a home tutor who is employed by an agency. I ask the Minister now to reconsider the position.
	In conclusion, there is no doubt that there is a loophole in the law. Non-Government bodies such as Essex county council, Essex police and the NSPCC have confirmed that. Those on the register, having been cautioned in relation to children, can and do advertise themselves directly to the public as home tutors without contravening any laws or regulations. There are insufficient checks to stop that happening.
	Parents have little or no ability independently to check the records held by the authorities on potential home tutors, and therefore rely almost exclusively on references supplied by the home tutor. It is accepted that the police have additional powers, but those are not fail-safe for the reasons outlined—for example, not one sex offenders order has been issued to date.
	Changes are being made to the way the Criminal Records Bureau functions, but completion dates, if attained, are some way in the future. Meanwhile, the Government's continued insistence that it is the parents' responsibility to employ home tutors through agencies rests on a dangerous assumption that all parents are fully aware of the various checks and balances that exist and of where the system fails.
	As I said at the beginning, the problem is not widespread. Cases are relatively few and far between, but should such a situation go wrong, it could go wrong in a big way. I am concerned about the Government's apparent unwillingness to address the issue properly. Having been unable to get the Government adequately to focus on the issue through correspondence, I look forward to the Minister's reply in the hope that he will adequately address the issue.

Paul Beresford: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) and thank him and the Minister for the opportunity to add a few words on the issue. We need an additional approach and the Minister will be aware of the direction I am coming from, because we discussed the matter in connection with the Sexual Offences Act 2003.
	The police have a requirement to monitor and risk-assess people, particularly paedophiles, on the sexual offenders list. But as the Minister will know—this is a difficulty, as I think my hon. Friend will agree—it is my belief that we, like many western nations, should allow right of entry to the police when they knock on the door to risk-assess such individuals. Unusually in the western world, British police do not have that opportunity, and the particular individuals about whom my hon. Friend speaks could be risk-assessed at any time by the police if they had the opportunity to enter.
	The Minister, in a letter to me, points out that the Association of Chief Police Officers reports that there is 90 per cent. compliance with the registration requirements, and that is fine, as I think everyone agrees, but that does not amount to risk assessment. The mere fact that offenders have filled in a form stating where they are and what they are doing to the limited extent required of them, does not give the police any opportunity to check.
	The Act contains a new power to which the Minister refers in his letter to me, which will
	"enable the information notified by registered sex offenders to be regularly checked against information held by other agencies."
	As the Minister knows, that is happening now, but it allows the police to check only the information that they already have and does not help with risk assessment.
	The Minister's letter goes on to talk about the multi-agency public protection arrangements, and to a fair degree they are already having an effect, but again the police say that they do not help them. Mr. Sarti, the detective chief inspector in charge of the Metropolitan police paedophile unit, who is known to the Minister because he escorted him round Scotland Yard and also presented the difficulties from the point of view of the police to the Committee that considered the Sexual Offences Bill, has sent me a considerable list of what he calls entrenched paedophiles who are not behaving within the spirit of the law, and that number is growing as it becomes apparent to entrenched paedophiles that the police do not have right of entry.
	I shall take just one individual who is categorised as medium risk. He was convicted of indecent assault on a male aged eight years and received three years' imprisonment. I shall not go into details because it is before the hour and I see that a few are observing and listening in, but whenever the police knock on his door he refuses to let them in or even face them at the door, and talks to them through the intercom. There is fair knowledge that he has a live-in girlfriend, but because he lives in a block of flats the police are unsure whether she has any children. They have tried to monitor him and assess the risk, but they have got absolutely nowhere because this individual knows that the police have no right to step any further.
	I should be grateful if the Minister could think about this again. I have an enormous list that I could provide him with, but he does not need it. He knows the situation, and I hope that even at this late stage there can be a rethink.
	Before I sit down, I should say that I am extremely late, not for the Home Office party, but for another event that I must attend, so with the permission of the House I shall disappear; but I will read the Minister's words with considerable interest, and I hope that I will not have to follow them up.

Paul Goggins: If the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) has to leave, I know that it is not from a lack of interest in the issue: he and I served on the Committee that considered the Sexual Offences Bill, so I know of his long-standing interest.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) on initiating this debate, so giving the House the opportunity to discuss this important subject, which, as he said, he has raised with me and with the Minister for School Standards.
	I welcome the way in which the hon. Gentleman has introduced the topic for debate and I am grateful for the prior notice that he gave me of the issues that he wished to discuss. He has put his finger on an important issue, which he describes as a loophole. I hope that some of the things that I say tonight will offer him some reassurance. I will consider the matter carefully, particularly the comments that he made at the end and the proposals that he put forward, and I look forward to having further discussions with him on the matter in the weeks ahead.
	I am sure he understands that there is no difference between us at all in our objective, which is to protect children from sexual abuse. I know that the hon. Gentleman understands these matters, but it may be helpful if I make some comments about the sex offenders register and how it works. Part 1 of the Sex Offenders Act 1997 requires those convicted or cautioned for certain sex offences to notify their name, date of birth and address to the local police, as well as any subsequent changes to those details. Such offenders are also required to tell the police if they intend to travel overseas for eight days of more or if they stay at another address in the United Kingdom for 14 days or more. Those provisions are to be tightened up as a result of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. It is important to emphasise that, as the hon. Gentleman said, registration is an administrative measure that is intended to help the police manage sex offenders in the community. It is an automatic consequence of a conviction or a caution for a specified offence—the courts have no discretion over who goes on the register. As registration is not therefore an additional penalty or punishment, applying prohibitions to the notification requirements would undermine that status
	It may also be worth mentioning that because registration is an administrative measure rather than a court disposal, it is not reflected in the disclosures that are provided by the Criminal Records Bureau, which show convictions and cautions for offences, not the fact that the person is a registered sex offender. All registered offenders would be covered by these disclosures, but that is because of their offences rather than the fact that they are registered.
	The notification process is commonly known as the sex offenders register, but there is no central register as such: instead, offenders are identified as being subject to the notification requirements by a marker on the police national computer. That will change next year when we introduce VISOR—the violent and sex offenders register. That, together with the multi-agency public protection arrangements, or MAPPA, which we have already put in place, will significantly improve the way in which police and probation services manage sex offenders living in the community. Those improvements in the management of offenders will mean, for example, that the police will be far more likely to be aware when an offender is operating as a private tutor.
	The purpose of the notification requirements is to ensure that the police know the identity and whereabouts of convicted sex offenders in their area. That helps the police in two ways. First, it helps them to manage sex offenders who are living in the community—for example, by enabling them to know when a sex offender is living next to a school or near a victim. Secondly, it helps in the detection of future sexual crimes, because the police immediately know the whereabouts of potential suspects. The notification requirements do not prohibit sex offenders from doing anything. They do not prevent them from moving house, from using another name or from travelling overseas—nor do they bar them from any form of employment. That has never been the purpose of the requirements, which are simply intended to enable the police to know where sex offenders are living and what names they are using.
	As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act, which received Royal Assent in November, re-enacts and improves the provisions relating to sex offender registration. We have, for example, shortened the time scales in which offenders must make their notifications, and introduced a requirement whereby they must annually confirm their details to the police. We are also changing the period that they can spend overseas or at an address other than their home address before they need to tell the police; and providing a power to allow the police to photograph or fingerprint an offender each time they make a notification. Those changes will further improve the effectiveness of the register.
	Although registration is not a suitable means of prohibiting sex offenders from working as private tutors, it should be noted that, as the hon. Gentleman said, convicted sex offenders can be made subject to a sex offender order. Those orders are made by the magistrates court and place prohibitions on an offender's behaviour where such prohibitions are needed to protect the public from serious harm. If someone with a previous conviction or caution for a sexual offence against children were to set themselves up as a private tutor, and there was evidence that in doing so they might commit further offences against children, the police could apply for a sex offender order that would prohibit them from working with children in that way.
	There is therefore a way of stopping convicted paedophiles from working as home tutors. It could be used, for example, against someone who receives a caution or a fine for the possession of child pornography. The hon. Gentleman said that no such orders had been made in relation to private tutors, but we will make it clear in our guidance to the police that the orders can be used for that purpose. We will draw their attention to the use of that order, as he suggested.
	Let us consider disqualification from working with children, including working as a private tutor. A person can be disqualified from working with children in three ways. First, in the case of teachers or those who work in the education sector, there are established procedures for anyone whose conduct has given cause for concern to be referred to the Department for Education and Skills. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman referred to List 99, to which names can be added.
	Similarly, child care and other organisations are charged under the Protection of Children Act 1999 with referring to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills—previously to the Secretary of State for Health—the case of anyone who has been dismissed on grounds of misconduct, whether in the course of their employment or not, that harmed a child or placed a child at risk. The Secretary of State has the power to place such a person on the Protection of Children Act—POCA—list, which disqualifies a person from working with children.
	When a person is convicted of serious offences against children, the court can also make an order disqualifying them from working with children in future. The orders, which are known as disqualification orders, are made by the higher courts against a specified list of violent and sexual offences when a sentence threshold is met. The orders seek to minimise the risks that known child sex offenders present by depriving them of the opportunity to gain access to children through work.

John Baron: I thank the Minister for recognising that there is an issue to tackle. I have taken on board his comments about making the police more aware of the availability of sex offender orders with regard to home tutors. Despite the detail that he is providing, does he accept that there remains a loophole in the law, which could allow those cautioned and on the sex offenders register to teach as home tutors?

Paul Goggins: I admitted at the beginning of my speech that there was an issue. I am suggesting that there are several ways in which people who clearly pose a danger to children could be anticipated by police through the new powers that we have given them and with the some of the new procedures. However, I acknowledge that we do not have a perfect solution and I am prepared to reflect on the hon. Gentleman's comments and continue to consider the matter. I emphasise that we do not have a gaping loophole; we are further along the road than that. There are measures that can help.
	All three cases that I outlined are covered by the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. Under that, it is an offence, punishable by up to five years in prison, for a person who is disqualified from working with children to apply for, offer to do, accept or undertake any work involving children, including acting as a private tutor. Private tutors who were caught in the circumstances that I outlined would face up to five years in prison if they even attempted to work as a private tutor. The fact that a person is disqualified from working with children would appear as part of an enhanced or standard disclosure from the Criminal Records Bureau.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that parents who employ a private tutor are unable to access higher level disclosures from the Criminal Records Bureau. That is because exemptions from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and the Police Act 1997, which govern the matter, are available only when people are considering someone's suitability
	"in the course of the duties of his office or employment".
	Clearly, that does not apply to parents who want to use a private tutor. We have no plans to change the law to provide that sort of access through the Criminal Records Bureau. Indeed, the body that reviewed the 1974 Act in 2001–02 was not persuaded that it would be appropriate for the law to be changed. Clearly, there is a balance to be struck between, for example, privacy and protection, and confidentiality and rehabilitation.
	We continue to explore the possibility of organisations such as local authorities providing a service as a "vetting body" for those who cannot access the Criminal Records Bureau for themselves. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman. Such organisations could access the system but would not relay to their clients the precise information that they received from the bureau. Instead, they would provide an assessment—
	The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Madam Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at fifteen minutes past Eight o'clock.

Deferred Division
	 — 
	Extradition

That the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 3rd December, be approved.
	The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 43.

Question accordingly agreed to.